1921-04-13

OFFICIAL REPORT


Volume I:: Pages 1-1000	Volume II: Pages 1001-2026


Volume III:: Pages 2027-3003	Volume IV: Pages 3005-4040


Volume V:: Pages 4041-4580



VOLUME CXLVIII


[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Hebates
*	OFFICIAL REPORT.
Wednesday, April 13, 1921.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. STEELE (South Perth) presented the first report of the special committee appointed to inquire into such matters as relate to the future fuel supply of Canada.
Mr. STEELE moved:: That the evidence now being taken by the special committee appointed to inquire into such matters as relate to the future fuel supply of Canada be printed from day to day, and that rule 74 relating thereto be suspended in accordance with the recommendation contained in the first report of the said committee.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This motion, in the
absence of notice, will require unanimous consent. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) moved:: That Orders-in-'Council P. C. 279, dated February 5, 1921, and P.C. 999, dated March 23, 1921, in respect to the appointment and salary of a manager for the Parliamentary restaurant, which were laid on the table of the House on' the 4th instant, be approved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. A. L. DAVIDSON (Digby and Annapolis) moved:: That the quorum of the special committee appointed to consider the subject of proportional representation and the subject of the transferable or preferential vote consist of seven members, and that the said committee be also empowered to report from time to time and authorized to have its proceedings and such evidence as may be taken printed from d'ay to day for the use of the members of the committee, and that rule 74 be suspended in reference thereto.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This motion also, in the absence cf notice, will require unanimous consent. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Annual report of the Superintendent of Penitentiaries for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1920.-Right Hon. Mr. Doherty.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 66 (from the Senate), respecting The Quebec, Montreal .and Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Lemieux.
Bill No. 67 (from the Senate), for the relief of George Gourley.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 68 (from the Senate), for the relief of Thomas Edwin William Flower. -Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 69 (from the Senate), for the relief of Royland Stanley Morrison.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 70 (from the Senate), for the relief of Arthur Ebenezer Sims.-Mr. Smith.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. DEMERS:: 1.	Does the Board of Arbitration, established pursuant to a convention called "Pecuniary Claims Convention" to give award upon the claims of money existing between the British Empire and the United States, among which are included the claims of Canadian hay dealers for overpaid rates of duty, still exist?
2.	If so, does the Government know when the reopening of the sittings of said board, which have been suspended since 1914, will take place?
3.	Does the Government intend to take steps toward the resumption of the hearings of said board in a near future?


Arthur Meighen: I mentioned yesterday that this question was answered on March 10 by myself. The answer is to be found at page 774 of unrevised Hansard.
Question dropped.



Mr. STEWART


Mr. DESAULNIERS:: 1.	Was a Mr. Stewart employed by the Government during the years 1918 and 1919 for the purpose of enforcing the Military Service Act in the county of North York and elsewhere in Ontario?
2.	Did he carry on his operations in Clarksburg, Ontario, and its vicinity and in Orillia?
3.	By whom was the said Mr. Stewart paid and on what basis, a percentage of fines or salary?
. 4. Were the fines collected under the Military Service Act received by any one else than the Receiver General?
5.	Is it the intention of the Government to reimburse any amount unlawfully collected and irregularly paid by any person in Canada under the provisions of the Military Service Act?
6.	If so, what methods or means should be adopted by the injured party?


Right Hon. Mr. DOHERTY:: An answer to this question has been furnished to me, but I think there is an error in it. I shall make inquiry, and give an answer later.
Question stands.


JUDGE SNIDER'S REPORT
*Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Has Judge Snider made any report in connection with the inquiry into the destruction of government property at the Printing Bureau ?
2.	If so, what is the date of the said report, what action has been taken thereon, and when will the report be laid on the table of the House?
3.	When will Judge Snider finish his inquiry?


Arthur Meighen: I find on inquiry that a report, I believe it is an interim report, has been received and is being submitted to the Governor General.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY SECTION MEN
Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Is it true that one section man has been dismissed from all or many of the different sections upon the Intercolonial railway?
2.	If so, 'why has this heen done at this season of the year?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The reduction in forces was put into effect in order to reduce operating expenses.


ST. LAWRENCE CHANNEL DREDGING
Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	How many dredges will be employed, during the coming season of navigation, on the deepening of the St. Lawrence channel, between Quebec and Montreal?
2.	Are these dredges ready for the work?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Three.
2.	They will he ready to be placed in commission on the date on which operations usually commence.


SHIPYARDS AT SOREL
Mr. CARDIN:: _	1. Has the management of government shipyards at Sorel been authorized to tender, during 1919 and 1920, with a view to securing contracts for the 'building or repairing of ships?
2.	Were said tenders called for by the Government, private individuals or companies?
3.	What was the character of the work?
4.	What prices were submitted by the various tenderers, including the Government?
5.	To whom were the contracts let and at what figures?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	Yes.	-
2.	The Government.
3.	Repairs to C.G.S. Montcalm.
4.	Prices were as follows:	Sorel Shipyards, Sorel, P.Q., $37,500; the McKay Boiler Works, Montreal, P.Q., $48,500; Canadian Vickers, Limited, Montreal, P.Q., $54,142; Lauzon Engineering, Limited, Levis, P.Q., $47,900; Alex. McKay & Company, Limited, Quebec, P.Q., $58,000.
5.	The Government Shipyard, Sorel, P.Q., $37,500.


INCOME TAX-SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. MYERS:: 1.	What was the total amount of income taxes collected for the years 1917 and 1918 in the province of Saskatchewan?
2.	What was the total cost of collecting the said taxes during the yeans 1917 and 1918 in the province of Saskatchewan?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: 1.	Amount collected under Income War Tax Act, 1917, up to December 31, 1920, on income realized in the province of Saskatchewan during calendar year 1917, $502,584.68; during calendar year 1918, $611,656.
2.	As the Income War Tax Act, 1917, was assented to only on September 20, 1917, no taxes were collected under that Act during fiscal years 1917 and 1918, therefore no expenses were incurred during said years. As to the succeeding years, as the income and business profits taxes are collected by the same staffs, no apportionment of the cost of collection as between one tax and the other is made. An answer to the question would also necessitate a proportioning of head office expenses over the several provinces.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. REID (Mackenzie) :: 1.	Did the Government operate a telegraph line in northern British Columbia prior to the taking over of the Great North Western Telegraph Company's line in connection with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and Canadian Northern Railway?
2.	Is the Government still operating both telegraph lines, namely, the old government line and the Great North Western Telegraph line?
3.	Why is the Government continuing to operate two telegraph offices in Hazelton, New Hazelton, Smithers, Telkwa and some other points along the Grand Trunk Pacific?
4.	Does the business warrant the maintaining of two separate telegraph offices in the towns mentioned?


INTERNATIONAL TRADE CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. J. A. ROBB (Chateauguay-Hunting-don) :: I desire to direct the attention of
the Prime Minister to the following despatch which recently appeared in the press:
Washington, D.C., April 7.-Thirty nations will be represented at the conference of ambassadors and ministers on world trade to be held in New York, May 16-18 inclusive, the department of commerce to-day announced. The conference has been arranged by the National Association of Manufacturers in order to enlist the active co-operation of the nation's producers - in stabilizing and stimulating reciprocal world trade and will be the first of its kind in this country^
As there are thirty nations to be represented at this Conference, the Prime Minister might say whether Canada is to be one of them.


Arthur Meighen: I have no recollection of the
matter having been under consideration. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) would know something about it. He will be here to-morrow, and in the meantime I shall call his attention to the question.


OIL LEASES
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. A. GRIESBACH (Edmonton West) :: I beg to direct the attention of the Government to the matter of the delay in the issuing of oil leases in the province of Alberta, and in the North-West Territory. I have received a large number of communications on the subject, informing me that applications for leases made as far back as November have met with no response from the department. As a result, the necessary machinery cannot be ordered
129J
and the whole industry is held up through this delay. What steps have been taken to meet the situation?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member was good
enough to give me notice about a week ago that he would ask this question at that time on the Orders of the Day. I had a memorandum prepared to enable me to answer it, but the hon. member did not ask the question. I have not that memorandum today, but I shall bring it to-morrow and answer the question.


BONUS TO CIVIL SERVANTS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. A. B. McCOIG (Kent) :: An article appeared in last night's Journal to the effect that civil servants will still receive the bonus they got last year, in view of the fact that the Estimates to be submitted will be sufficient for the purpose. Is this correct? If so, will members of this House have an opportunity of discussing the matter before the order goes into effect? The article in question states that there is a sufficient sum to cover the 25 per cent reduction that is contemplated.


Arthur Meighen: The Government's position as
respects the bonus [DOT] is as stated by me at -the time this question was first raised, I think by the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Murphy). There has been no change. The subject, of course, may be discussed when the Estimate for the paying of the bonus is under consideration.


Archibald Blake McCoig: Will hon. members have
'an opportunity to discuss the matter before the order goes into effect?


Arthur Meighen: There is no bonus
statutorily payable, it is payable by virtue of a vote of Parliament. If hon. members think that the vote we submit for the purpose of paying the bonus on the reduced basis is too small, they may, of course, argue accordingly in the House. There will be ample opportunity for discussion.


CHIEF, RAILWAY COMMISSIONER'S ALLEGED STATEMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. M. MOWAT (Parkdale) :: I desire to ask the Government the two following questions: First: Is the Government aware that Hon. F. B. Carvell, Chief Railway Commissioner, recently said at Vancouver that the action of Parliament in

acquiring the Canadian Northern Railway was capricious and ill-considered, in that *he referred to Government-owned railways as a "toy?" Second: Has the Government considered whether the loquacity of the Chief Commissioner on current politics can be limited?


Arthur Meighen: I have observed reports of addresses delivered by the Chief Commissioner, but the statement referred to by the hon. member had not previously come to my notice. The Chief Commissioner, or any commissioner of the Railway Board, is not an officer of the Government. The only control with regard to him has been provided by Parliament and will be found in the Railway Act.


Mr. FIELDING:: Has he not the rank and status of a judge? If so, are we, or are we not, at liberty to discuss his proceedings here?


Arthur Meighen: I do not propose to discuss them. If the question comes up, it will be a point of order for Mr. Speaker.


GRAND TRUNK ARBITRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. FRANK CAHILL (Pontiac):: In
view of the discontinuance of the arbitra-' tion'proceedings between the Grand Trunk and the Government, is the Government now released from its obligations under the agreement?


Arthur Meighen: I have answered similar questions before, and it is my duty to answer this one. In the first place, I do not think the question is a proper one on the Orders of the Day; and, secondly, legal opinions cannot be given on a question asked at this stage.


THE ROUMANIAN LOAN
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: On the first of this month I inquired of the Government as to whether the interest on the Roumanian loan had been paid on that day, and I was told that information would be sought and given to the House later on. Has the Minister of Finance any information on the subject now?


Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) :: This question was answered on a previous occasion, in reply either to the hon. member or some other hon. gentleman. The interest has not yet been paid.
(Mr. Mowat.]


ST. JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways and Canals) the House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That the provisions of, chapter thirty-one of the statutes of 1919 respecting the extension of the time for the completion of the Saint John and Quebec Railway' between Centreville in the county of Carleton, and Andover in the county of Victoria, be amended by substituting the thirty-first day of December, 1923, for the thirty-first day of December, 1921.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Why is the
extension necessary?


Hon. Mr. REID:: I am introducing the Bill to be founded on this resolution at the request of the Premier of New Brunswick. The St. John and Quebec railway is really a provincial line, but it has not yet been completed. Two branch lines have been constructed, in connection with this system 

one of one hundred and twenty miles and the other of forty-five miles-between Andover and Centreville. The construction by the Provincial Government was delayed on account of the war and by reason of financial conditions. The present Bill extends the time for the construction of that portion of the system referred to in the resolution for another two years. Two years ago I introduced a Bill granting an extension from 1919 to 1921; it is now proposed to further extend the time from 1921 to 1922.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: Are these railways to be taken over by the Dominion Government?


John Dowsley Reid: No. The agreement
with the Provincial Government is that the Dominion Government will operate the system on a percentage basis.


John Howard Sinclair: Are the roads that are being operated profitable to the Dominion Government?


John Dowsley Reid: No, they are not. For the twelve months ending December 31, 1920, the gross earnings were $218,127.54, while the operating expenses were $564,143.03, showing an operating deficit of $346,015.49. This is exclusive of the forty per cent gross earnings, amounting to $87,251, payable as rental money.


John Howard Sinclair: Does
the minister expect that operation of the road he is now projecting will have a similar result?


John Dowsley Reid: We are hot building the road. If it is constructed it will be built by the Provincial Government.


John Howard Sinclair: But when the road is completed the Dominion Government will take it over and run it.


John Dowsley Reid: We will be compelled to take it over under the ^agreement that was made, provided the New Brunswick Government goes on with the construction.


Mr. MICHAUD:: It is very urgent that the projected line from Centreville to Andover shall be built in order to secure connection with other main line railways, and obtain better transportation from the upper part of the province of New Brunswick to the seaport of St. John.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Hon. Mr. REID thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 71, to authorize an extension of time for the completion of the St. John and Quebec railway between Centreville, in the county of Carle-ton and Andover in the county of Victoria, 'New Brunswick.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.


ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT-COMPENSATION FOR SLAUGHTERED ANIMALS.
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. S. F. Tolmie, Minister of Agriculture, the House went into committee, Mr. Boivin in the Chair, on the following proposed resolution.
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend, the Aniimal Contagious Diseases Act by providing that the time for the operation of subsection one of section six of the said Act as enacted by chapter eight of the statutes of IMS, relating to the compensation jfor slaughtered animals, shall be extended for three years from the twenty-fourth day of May, 1921.
Mr. TOLMIE:: The clause in the present Animal Contagious Diseases Act granting power to pay compensation for animals slaughtered will expire on May 24, this year, and it is proposed to repeal subsection 1 of section 6 of the Act so that the right to grant compensation may be extended for three years more, the rate to be the same as it is at present. We arie carrying on a good deal of work under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and it is necessary that this compensation be continued. No change is proposed in the compensation paid because we think that the present amount is fair and just to those whose animals are slaughtered under the
operation of the Act. We are taking up the accredited herd system which is using up a good deal of compensation money. As the movement is being taken up very freely by the farmers and is proving to be very popular we are anxious that a fair amount of compensation should be paid in the carrying out of the work.
Resolution reported.



CANADIAN NATIONALS DEFINITION ACT

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 17 to define Canadian Nationals, Mr. Boivin in the 'Chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When this Bill was last before the committee clause 1, as amended, had been adopted and clause 2, also. The Bill was allowed to stand for further consideration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The reason for the Bill being allowed to stand was in order that consideration might be given to a suggestion for which I am indebted to the Ijon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. My hon. friend pointed out that in connection with clause 2, which was passed, it would be desirable tnat a form of declaration should be provided, and on looking the matter up, I find that he is quite right m that regard-there should be such a iorm. The explanation given for the omission was that the clause was taken from the provisions of the Nationalization Act, and that there a form is not provided, the reason being that under that statute there exists power to make regulations under which the form could be defined. As there are no regulations to enable such a thing to be done in the case of the present measure, the form ought to be provided in the statute itself. I beg therefore to move:
That Clause 2 be amended by striking out the words "and on making such declaration shall cease to be a Canadian National" in the two last lines thereof and substituting the following :
"Such declaration may be made before a notary public or other person authorized to administer oaths in the locality in which the declaration is made, and may be in the form set out in the schedule to this Act. The declarant shall transmit his declaration to the Secretary of State of Canada and upon the Secretary of State being satisfied of the sufficiency of the declaration and that it has been duly executed it shall be filed of record, whereupon the declarant shall cease to be a Canadian National, and a certified copy of the declaration shall be forwarded to the declarant with an endorsement thereon that the original declaration has been filed of record."

Schedule
Declaration of renunciation of Canadian nationality.
I	of the
of	in the
of	, do hereby declare:
1.	That I am a Canadian National within
the definition of "An Act to define Canadian Nationals," being chapter	of the
statutes of 1921, by reason of the fact that
2.	That I am also a National of by reason of the fact that
3.	That I am of the full age of twenty-one years and under no disability.
4.	That I hereby renounce my Canadian nationality and declare that it is my desire to be considered and treated as a National of
Made and subscribed before me at the	of	in the
of this day of	*9
A Notary Public or other person
authorized to administer oaths.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: May I ask the minister if copies of this amendment have been distributed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. As I explained, the matter was discussed when the Bill was before the committee, and the proposal which is now being made is to carry out the suggestion of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) that there should be provided a form of declaration to be made when a person renounces his Canadian nationality.


Joseph Archambault: Surely, Mr. Chairman, we cannot discuss the amendment which has just been read by the minister without having had an opportunity of reading and considering it. I would like to take cognizance of this amendment before castng a vote.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: So would I.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I acted under the apprehension that the matter had already been before the committee and that the sole question was whether we should carry out the suggestion made by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. If the hon. gentleman thinks there is any danger in accepting that suggestion, and that he would like to have an opportunity to further consider the amendment, I am quite willing to meet his convenience.


Joseph Archambault: I would suggest that the minister give us an opportunity to read the amendment. I move that the Bill stand.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would regret that we should be delayed in getting this Bill through committee, but I must leave it to the judgment of the hon. gentleman. If

he thinks it is really important and desires to insist on his objection, I would not refuse to yield to that insistence. But perhaps he might give a moment's thought as to whether the matter is of sufficient importance to warrant this delay.


Joseph Archambault: As I said before, I have not read.the amendment which the minister has just presented, and therefore I cannot intelligently discuss it. My right hon. friend may be ab'e to do that: I cannot.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He has had more experience, he is an ex-judge.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Perhaps the hon.
gentleman might read the amendment now.


Joseph Archambault: Some other
members might like to read it, too.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They are here to protect the people.


Mr. MURPHY:: I do not wish to delay
the passage of the Bill, not even by making a suggestion, but may I point out to my right hon. friend (Mr. Doherty) that while the original title of the Bill is "An Act to define Canadian nationals," the amendment which he has just introduced when added to section 2 makes that section the most important part of the Bill, and that it deals with the action by which a person can rid himself of his Canadian nationality. Under the circumstances might it not be well to amplify the title, if not to make some other changes in it?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I understand it
rightly, the question of the title will come up after the third reading.


Charles Murphy: I am suggesting it now.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would be glad to
consider the desirability of adding words to cover what the hon. gentleman suggests.


Joseph Archambault: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: My hon. friend overlooks the fact that when the Bill was in committee it was amended to contain two clauses, and those clauses were both adopted, subject to consideration of the suggestion of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. So the hon. gentleman is going back to the Bill as it was originally introduced.


Charles Murphy: There is a reprint of
the Bill on file.


Mr. POWER:: While I have the highest respect for the Minister of Justice and for the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault), I would point out that there appears to be an amendment which has been submitted only to the Minister of Justice and to the hon. member. Surely other hon. members who are being asked to vote ought to know what is going on.


Joseph Archambault: I quite agree
with my hon. friend.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I have said already, this amendment is to meet the suggestion which came from the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's and which I thought the committee fully apprehended when it was made and discussed. However, if hon. gentlemen think that it is of sufficient importance that they should have a further opportunity to read this amendment, I do not desire to persist. I only venture to suggest that under the circumstances perhaps on further consideration hon. members might not think it necessary to insist; but if they do insist I do not.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Mr. Chairman, may
I suggest a middle course? If I understand well, this amendment has been brought down at the suggestion of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. Therefore if it is satisfactory to him, I do not see why we should delay its acceptance by the committee.


William Stevens Fielding: I suggest, if it is not unacceptable to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Gauvreau) that we might let the Bill go through and wait for its third reading, the minister assuring us that ample time will be given before the third reading is moved.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I certainly would agree to that.	*
On the title:


Georges Henri Boivin: I may say that the title cannot be changed in committee. The
custom is that' the committee suggest to the House any change in title which it desires to have made, and then the change is made by motion which follows the third reading of the Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the suggestion of the hon. gentleman would be met if the title were altered by adding thereto the words: " and to provide for the renunciation of Canadian nationality." Then we shall have covered the two items.
Bill as amended reported.



LAKE OF THE WOODS CONTROL

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 23 (from the Senate) respecting The Lake of the Woods Control Board.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) is interested in this Bill. I do not know whether my right hon. friend would consider delaying it under the circumstances.


Arthur Meighen: In that event I suggest that we at least get the Bill to the committee stage, because there are two amendments which I wish to propose.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
The House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-creation of board:
Mr. LAPOINTE:: I renew the request made by the leader of the Opposition. The member for Three Rivers has given special consideration to this Bill, and I think it is only fair to wait until he returns. He will be here next Monday.


Arthur Meighen: I should be sorry to wait until Monday, and I will give the reason why. I did intend to go on with this Bill some two or three weeks ago but the necessity for getting as far as possible with Supply was such that I deferred it. This Bill is the basis of concurrent legislation of this Parliament and the Ontario Legislature. A similar Bill has been introduced in the Ontario Legislature; I do not know just how far it has gone. I am informed that the Provincial House is likely very shortly to prorogue, and I do desire that this legislation be dealt with finally by this House before that Legislature prorogues. I did not know that the hon. member for Three Rivers was specially interested in it. It affects only Western Ontario and Manitoba. Is there any other hon. member

who can summon an interest in the Bill so as to enable us to go on with it to-morrow if we do not get through to-day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Three Rivers has been making a special study of the matter with a view of presenting certain points to the Government. That is the reason why we wished to have him present if possible.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps we could go on and I will submit the amendments proposed. We can defer consideration of the amended clauses and of the preamble, where the principle of the Bill comes in. I will ascertain by to-morrow when it is the intention of the Legislature to prorogue, and if the date is sufficiently remote and we can wait until Monday, I shall be quite willing to do so.


Ernest Lapointe: Could my hon. friend not submit his amendments without adopting any section?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I can do that. The amendments are as follows:	To be
added to paragraph (d) of section 3:
Save and excepting the operation and control of all dams and regulating works extending across the international boundary, and the dam. and regulating works across the Canadian channel at Kettle Palls.
It is proposed also to amend section 3 by inserting therein the words " severally and" so as to make it read:
It shall be the duty of the board to secure severally and at all times the most dependable flow.
These are the amendments proposed.


Charles Murphy: I was not present when the Bill was discussed before-if it was discussed in any detail. May I ask my right hon. friend why legislation of the Dominion Parliament is necessary concurrently with that of the Ontario Legislature?


Arthur Meighen: The International Joint Commission had referred to it some years ago the vexed question as to control of the waters of the Lake of the Woods with a view, first of all, of protecting the interests of navigation on the lake and on rivers flowing into and from it, and, secondly, of securing the greatest power advantages from the waters flowing to and out of the lake; and, of course, of securing these objects with the least possible damage to private interests or to lands owned by adjoining countries, and at the least possible expense. The Dominion of Canada was represented before the International Joint

Commission by a technical board known as the Lake of the Woods Technical Board. They prepared the case for the Dominion and the commission reported. The report was received in 1917. It was satisfactory, on the whole, to the Dominion, and an Order in Council was passed approving the report and suggesting methods of putting it into effect, which order was transmitted to the Government of the United States. I will not pursue the history of that further at the moment. There are certain dams and power developments along or near the international boundary in the waters flowing into the Lake of the Woods. There are also dams and power developments in the Winnipeg river flowing westerly and northerly out of the Lake of the Woods into Lake Winnipeg. There is also very much power developable along the English river which flows westerly into the Winnipeg river, joining it about fifty miles west of the Lake of the Woods. The amount of developable power in Ontario is, I think, about 100,000 horse-power on the Winnipeg river, and on the English river nearly 140,000 horse-power, but the amount of developable power in Manitoba is 500,000 horse-power. Much of the Manitoba power is already developed. The city of Winnipeg has a very large plant on the Winnipeg river, and the Winnipeg street railway also has a plant on that river and through a subsidiary company is developing a power site of over 100,000 horse-power capacity. Consequently the province of Manitoba is interested in 'seeing that the waters of the Winnipeg river are not interfered with further up the stream to the disadvantage of power development within the province of Manitoba. The Dominion of Canada is interested in this because, first, the Dominion has jurisdiction over international waters; second, responsibility as regards navigation is solely federal; and third, responsibility for the administration of water-powers in Manitoba is also federal.
The report of the Joint Commission as to how to secure the two advantages in the best way was shortly to the effect that there should be a level kept on the Lake of the Woods between 1,056 and 1,061, a latitude of five feet being allowed between low and high water, and that, if the water were kept between those two levels, the minimum and the maximum, the interests of navigation would be best protected. The commission recommended that under competent authority in Canada the waters be utilized within those limits, and that there

should be created an international board whose duties would arise onily when the waters went below the minimum or above the maximum of such limit, because the interest of the United States in the level of the Lake of the Woods was an interest from the standpoint of navigation and riparian property only.


Charles Murphy: Not power?


Arthur Meighen: Not power. The finding seemed to the Dominion satisfactory, but the finding has not yet been accepted by the Government of the United States. A despatch was received, I believe, about November 22 last, in which despatch general concurrence with the commission's report was expressed, but in which reopening of the reference to an extent was suggested for certain purposes. . A reply has been despatched to that communication, in which reply it is argued
4 p.m. that there is no need of any variation in the finding of the commission for the purposes that seemed to be desired by the United States Government in the communication.
In the meantime, however, there have been occurrences with respect to the Lake of the Woods. There was, at the outlet of the Lake of the Woods, a dam known as the Norman dam, constructed, I think, by the Keewatin Waterpower Company between the years 1892 and 1895. That dam was constructed, I believe, primarily to develop certain power at that point; but in effect the dam is an instrument for controlling the level of the Lake of the Woods and, as well, is an instrument for controlling the flow of water out of the Lake of the Woods into the Winnipeg river and, consequently, has a certain authority over the White Dog falls farther down in Ontario and cumulatively on the other falls below. The Keewatin Power Company has, I understand, recently become the property of the Backus interest. The Ontario Government, it appears, made an arrangement some years ago with the Keewatin Power Company, whereby the Norman dam could be used under the Ontario Government for the control of the level of the Lake of the Woods. I cannot see how there was any jurisdiction in the Ontario Government to exercise the powers which that agreement contemplated, because the control of the level of the Lake of the Woods was a control incident primarily to navigation, and, as well appertained to international waters, and was consequently, a federal responsibility. That power, however, has
been exercised until recently, and the agreement providing for it contains a clause which puts it into the power of either party, and consequently now into the power of the owners of the Keewatin Power Company, to terminate the agreement on very short notice, I think it is only a month. Therefore, the control that is in the Ontario Government, on whatever constitutional foundation that control may rest, is a very insecure control and probably very temporary in its nature. In order to secure to Canada the intent of the finding of the commission, there was created, after the report of the Commission, by Order in Council, a Lake of the Woods Control Board. It had not any specific statutory foundation. A similar order was passed by the Ontario Government, and that board was constituted of two Dominion officers and two provincial officers, and they have ever since endeavoured to carry out, so far as Canada was concerned, the intent of the finding of the commission. They, however, finding the position they were getting into by reason of the acquirement of this dam, and, I presume, as well by the acquirement of the White Dog falls or some intention to acquire it on the part of the Backus interest, the same interest that has control of the dam, and understanding fully the insecure tenure by which their powers were held, asked that joint legislation be put through by both Legislatures, putting the control board on a. secure statutory footing in order to enable it to carry out the intention of the International Joint Commission. The spirit and meaning of the commission's findng provided that the-board controlling the outflow of the Lake of the Woods should so control it as to secure what was known as the highest dependable flow, that is to say, the highest minimum flow. That is a principle of water control which, I understand, is adopted in the report of the International Joint Commission. That is the principle which the board already constituted has been endeavouring to carry out. That is the principle which the board proposed to be constituted by this legislation is directed to carry out. The duty of the Board to be established by this legislation and by a similar Bill of the Ontario Legislature would be so to control the outlet of the Lake of the Woods, and so to control the waters of the Winnipeg river as to procure the highest dependable flow, not of the two conjointly, but of each one severally, the highest on the one, and the highest on the other, for

the reason that by the adoption of that principle, the best ultimate results ensue to all concerned. It is contended that the best results do not ensue possibly to one individual or to another. It is contended and has been strongly urged by Mr. Backus, that the best results do not accrue to him as owner of the Norman dam, that he could get results more commercially advantageous to himself by such control as the dam gives him power to exercise, giving him all the power he may desire at one time, even though at another time when he does not want it, there might be relatively a very small amount of power. But this point must be taken into account, that the control of navigation is federal, that the law of this country for many, many years has provided that there shall be no impediment placed in any navigable stream save by authority of the Government of Canada. The Winnipeg river has been held by the courts of this Dominion to be a navigable stream within the meaning of the British North America Act, and that being the case, there was no power in the first place to erect the Norman dam in this navigable stream without consent, and consent, as a matter of fact, was never asked for; at least, it never was obtained. Consequently, such rights as might otherwise be argued for are in an inchoate, if not a non-existent, state as regards that dam, there never having been permission for its erection on the part of the Federal Government.
I have explained very briefly the purposes of the Bill. It is to secure such control as ought to be exercised pursuant to the finding of the commission, and at least pending the final adoption of the report by the two governments, and probably afterwards-to secure such control as is in consonance with the finding of the commission, not interfering, of course, with United States rights in the meantime. The reason it is joint is this: that the Provincial Government of Ontario has jurisdiction in respect of water-powers on the river, while the Federal Government has jurisdiction in respect of navigation and of water-power on the Winnipeg river westerly from the province of Ontario. Consequently, it was thought that joint legislation- would secure the object best, and be best fitted to take care of the very complex problems that are associated with the whole Lake of the Woods water supply. That is, in brief, the purpose of the legislation.


Charles Murphy: I desire to thank the right hon. the Prime Minister for the explanation which he has just given to the committee of the reasons underlying this Bill. The Bill is of very great public importance, affecting not only the people of two provinces, but the people of the two neighbouring countries, the United States and Canada. For that reason the explanation given by the right hon. gentleman this afternoon will be widely read and will be very generally appreciated. I take it from what he.has said that the existing board of control is composed of representatives of the Dominion and of the province of Ontario.


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Charles Murphy: Then may I ask the
right hon. gentleman if the board which is intended to act jointly with the Canadian board has yet been appointed by the Government of the United States.


Arthur Meighen: No. I think there is no international board because they have not yet accepted the finding of the commission. I should say that the two Governments are, in my opinion, not far apart.


Charles Murphy: Thank you.
Progress reported.



CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Hugh Guthrie (Acting Solicitor General), Bill No. 39, to amend the statutes relating to corrupt practices at elections, was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-"illegal practices":
Charles Murphy: What is this?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The object of this Bill is to, bring the three other Acts into harmony with the Dominion Elections Act passed last session. The clause which you have just read, Mr. Chairman, introduces into the Controverted Elections Act the offence "illegal practices." In the former Dominion Elections Act we only knew the offence called "corrupt practices," but this new offence was introduced in the Dominion Elections Act which we passed last session. It is desired to make the Dominion Converted Elections Act conform with the Dominion Elections Act in that respect. Also in the Dominion Elections Act the term "official agent" was introduced for the first time and certain duties were prescribed for that official. That office was

unknown under the Controverted Elections Act, and it is desired to recognize it now.
I might say that the whole of this Bill has been prepared by the Chief Electoral Officer after a great deal of study, and I think myself that all these changes are very necessary if we are going to have three very workable acts.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-time for presenting petitions against return:
Ernest Lapointe: What are the main
changes in the existing law?


Hugh Guthrie: 
[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Avoidance of election by corrupt or illegal practice.
Hugh Guthrie: The reason for this
section is that the consequences of finding that there has been corrupt practice differ
from the consequences of illegal practices. The original section applied to corrupt practices; now it applies to both.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-Exoneration of candidate from consequences of corrupt or illegal practice.
Hugh Guthrie: The only change in this section is the addition of the words "or by his official agent" in subsection (a), and the words "and his official agent" in subsection (b).


Ernest Lapointe: It makes the candidate responsible for the actions of his official agent?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-Exoneration of any person from consequences of illegal practice.
Ernest Lapointe: This section seems to
give great discretion to the court.


Hugh Guthrie: The discretion is no
greater than was given in the Act of last session after a great deal of discussion on this point. It is in the nature of a saving clause which, I think, has been continued in our law for many years. The only change now is to extend it to agents and to illegal practices.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to. .
On section 8-Punishment of corrupt or illegal practices.
Hugh Guthrie: The present section provides a penalty, by way of fine or imprisonment, for corrupt practices only. Section 84 of the Dominion Elections Act seems to cover the point dealt with by this section, and section 85 of the same Act, provides for the penalties for illegal practices. The chief electoral officer states that, in the circumstances, this section appears unnecessary-that is, section 107 as it now stands- but that it might be wise to retain it as an alternative to cover offences, if any, for which no penalty is otherwise provided. He suggests that the amended section be in the terms as just read by the Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On seotion 11-Judge's report published.
Hugh Guthrie: This section of the Disfranchising Act contains machinery for keeping the name of a disfranchised elector off the voters' list used for federal purposes. The machinery is inapplicable to the Dominion Elections Act in its present form and might be struck out of the Act.

It is proposed to make the amendment as read by the Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Sir Henry Drayton (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
['I must point out to the hon. member for Grey that in committee an hon. member is not obliged to vote. The question is on the main motion.\nMain motion (Sir Henry Drayton) agreed to; yeas, 117; nays, 63.\nResolutions reported and concurred in.']
William Stevens Fielding: the world, and they can get along no doubt if they establish a hostile tariff against us to-day. The people of each country have the patriotism to feel that they can get along and be independent if necessary, no matter what the other may do. We at all events say that as respects Canada. But I do not hesitate to say that although'we will get along without them, and that they will get along without us, we will both get along better if we be friendly and reciprocal in our tariffs.
The talk of this coming enactment at Washington has already created a good deal of ill-feeling, and naturally so. Our newspapers contain angry editorials threatening, reprisals. A minister of the Crown has said that if this Bill should pass Canada will not take it lying down. It is natural for such opinions to be expressed, but I do not think that angry editorials or threats of reprisals will serve any good purpose to-day. We should all apply ourselves to some effort to save ourselves from the injury on both sides of the line that may be brought about by the enactment of this adverse commercial legislation.
Now there is a happy situation before us which is perhaps not generally known. It is a. very interesting fact, and of great importance now, that the reciprocity agreement of 1911 is still on the statute books of the United States. There is a widespread impression abroad that that Tariff Act of the United States was repealed. It was repealed so far as the action of the House of Representatives could repeal it, but when the Bill for that purpose went to the Senate it got no further. And so it happens that the reciprocity agreement of 1911, though a matter of the past so far as Canada is concerned, is to-day on the statute books of the United States and is, if I may so call it, a standing offer. How far it represents the public opinion of the United States to-day is a debatable question. They regard it largely, I have no doubt, as a matter of the past, but since the Act is there, we are justified in assuming that it is still open to us to consider, and I think we shall do well if we proceed along these lines.
There is no doubt that the passing of the Fordney Bill would be a matter of injury to Canada. The wheat growers of the West attach great importance to their access to the American market. That has been shown in various ways. The Government of the day have shown their appreciation of that by arranging that wheat shall be mutually free. And in the matter

of the cattle trade of the country I think the feeling is stronger. I know that some of the most important ranchers in the western country regard the Fordney Bill as a very great menace to them, and if it is passed they consider that all the cattle and stock-raising interests of Western Canada will have received a very severe blow. That is the impression of men in the trade whc are best informed.
Now, should we stand idly by and wait until something happens, or shall we make some effort to show our American friends that we are willing to meet them half way to avert what would seem to be a danger? It is our move. Mr. Samuel W. McCall, the statesman of Massachusetts who had charge of the Reciprocity Bill in Congress, was interviewed not many months ago by an American newspaper and was asked what he thought of the future of reciprocity. He said:
As to the future of reciprocity, if it is ever again to become a practical issue, the initiative will have to proceed from Canada. After one emphatic rebuff our country is not likely to appear in the position of coaxing a neighbour, and coaxing her for something that is vastly more important to her than to us.
Whether it is more important to the United States or to Canada is a matter perhaps on which there will be a difference of opinion, and I do not want to raise any matter of controversy. I think we will all agree that, apart from that point, the statement of Mr. McCall is a natural and , a reasonable one. Whatever may be said as to their motives, the Americans, who, for so long, we thought, acted so ungenerously toward us, did take the last step toward closer relations with us. The last movement for reciprocity, I say, came from them, and if there is to be any other movement in the matter Mr. McCall is reasonable in his assertion that it must come from Canada. We might well, then, in view of the situation in Washington to-day, place ourselves on record as being willing to resume negotiations and to confirm the agreement which some years ago we were not pleased to accept.
Now, it may be said: Why should we make a move at all? I am satisfied that if nothing is done-if we simply let angry articles appear in the newspapers; if angry ministers say they will not take these things lying down-we shall have bad blood between the United States and Canada; and there never was a time when, even apart from the question of commercial relations, it was more desirable that Canada and the

United States should be on friendly terms. More than one public speaker of late has said that Canada should be the interpreter of good relations between the Mother Country and the great American Republic. It is a sensible thought; and what better can we do than begin by trying to establish better commercial relations? If we are going to have barbed wire entanglements of the tariff separating these two peoples, idepend upon it that friendly relations cannot continue; such conditions are bound to be productive of friction. In the interests of Canada, then; in the interests of the United States; in the interests of the Empire; in the interests of the world, which are identified with the interests of the British Empire and of the United States, we should make any move that is possible to cultivate friendly relations with our neighbours to the south.
I do not desire, Sir, to detain the House at any considerable length in the matter;
I think the questions I have already discussed cover the ground pretty well. We should be doing a good thing in making another approach toward our American friends. I have said that the historical policy of the Republican party has been one of high tariff while that of the Democratic party has been toward low tariff- lower, at all events, than that which the Republican party usually has followed. One of the happy circumstances in connection with the reciprocity agreement was that a compromise was effected; the Republican administration, usually favourable to a high tariff, made the agreement for reciprocity, and the Democratic party found it so much in harmony with the principles advocated by their historic party, that they, in the main, supported it. On that issue, therefore, we had a compromise between the Republicans and the Democrats. While the Republican party is to-day largely a high tariff party, and while all that is occurring at Washington suggests to us that an effort is being made to restore the high duties of former times, we are not unaware of the fact that a considerable element in the United States, including even Republicans, look with grave doubt upon this movement and would be glad, I think, to find some basis upon which they could come to an agreement. I know that there is a disposition among the leading men in the United States to regard Canada somewhat differently from the European world. The policy of the United States is protectionist when the Republican party is in power, but-it is usually protectionist
as against Europe. I know that some leading members of the Republican party have in times past been prepared to say that they should give exceptional treatment to Canada, their nearest neighbour. If we make a move in the right direction there will be found not only in the Democratic party but in the Republican party influential men. who will say: While we are prepared to deal with other countries in the spirit of legislation which has been proposed, we recognize that on account of her proximity and for other reasons we ought to pursue a more generous policy towards Canada.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, without further delay, I move, seconded by Mr. Mackenzie King:
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be omitted and the following inserted instead thereof:
"In the opinion of the House, the Government should bring in a measure to approve, ratify, and confirm the agreement respecting reciprocal trade between the United States and Canada signed at Washington on the 21st day of January, 1911, by Hon. P. C. Knox on the part of the United States, and by Hon. W. S. Fielding and the late Hon. William Paterson, on the part of Canada, which agreement remains on the statute book of the United States."


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise on this occasion, though a somewhat unexpected pleasure; I have not been able to give to the subject that amount of work and degree of attention which should be characteristic of a reply to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). I shall not be able to give the House a long list of articles which are particularly affected; I shall have to deal more or less generally with the issue.
I agree with my hon. friend that it is quite possible to have a motion which does not involve censure of the Government, which does not call for a vote of want of confidence. It is quite possible to have a constructive motion; quite possible to have motions that are helpful and not calculated to work up a long debate and delay the proceeedings in a House already delayed But I venture to submit that such is not the character of the motion now before the House.
In the first instance, I wish at once to agree with some of the things that my hon. friend says. Certainly no one in Canada, so far as I know, is either looking for or hoping to make trouble with the United States. Canada, having regard to her size, her population and her resources, is immeasurably the best customer of the United States. It is also true that Canada, with

her eight or nine millions of people, does more business with the United States and is in closer touch with that country than the whole of the continent of South America, with which the United States people are at present doing so much trade. There is no issue between us as to the necessity of maintaining the very best possible relations with our great neighbour to the south, and I am sure that every hon. gentleman on this side is as anxious as my hon. friend that those relations should be fostered and maintained. We. may differ, of course, as to the best way of maintaining them.
At the present time when resolutions have been unanimously adopted, when a great election has been fought on the question of protection for American agriculturists, some of us may, perhaps, think that the best way of maintaining proper friendly relationships with that great country would not be by the adoption of a resolution accepting an old offer, the adoption of a resolution which could only be helpful if it was thought to have a binding effect upon the United States, a resolution thrown into their Congress after the policy of that Government has been declared. Some people might think that that was something, rather in the nature of sharp practice than good neighbourly conduct. What happens if this resolution is adopted? In the first instance, what complaint has the United States against Canada? What grievance is there that hon. gentlemen would have removed? Let us see, first, if we can find out what that is. Are we not trading enough with the United States? Our trade with the United States is constantly increasing, with the margin constantly on the American credit side and not on the Canadian credit side. During the last eleven months Canada imported from the United States $792,804,843 worth of commodities. Does that look as if we were not trading very largely with the United States, or as if there was any room for complaint on the part of American shippers against the tariff system of this country? During the same period we exported to the United States $540,494,713 worth of goods. I wonder what my hon. friend thinks about adverse balances and debts which must be paid. I wonder if he thinks that there is no limit to the amount to which adverse balances can be allowed to accumulate. I wonder if he thinks that we are not owing now half enough and that any little barrier-and it cannot be very great in view of these 
figures-that is left must be wiped away, never mind what the result may be. We have those adverse balances and they are mirrored in our currency. Last year the result was that we had a maximum of nineteen per cent discount on our Canadian dollar, and this agitation that exists today in the United States had its birth in the fact that we were buying foolishly, unwisely, in the American market. The trouble to-day about this Fordney Bill is not that we have been buying too little, but that we have been buying too much.


Mr. VIEN:: Does the minister not think that if there is a tariff barrier keeping our goods out of the United States, the adverse balance against us will be still worse?


Henry Lumley Drayton: As I was saying, the adverse balance is the reason for the trouble that we have to-day, and if I understand the argument of my hon. friend, the idea is to make it still easier to increase that adverse balance against us by the reduction of Canadian customs.


Thomas Vien: No, but to ship more goods.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is this motion? What is the argument? The argument is reciprocity, friendly free trade. The real argument to-day, if it means anything, is that Canada is to give up any- __ thing and everything still left
5 p.m. by way of tariff protection. If you take it away, of course your balance will go up. As I was going to say, this adverse trade balance is the real reason for the agitation that has unfortunately sprung up-something which we all very much deplore-in the country to the south of us. While a depreciated currency is a very bad thing in a buying market, it is an excellent thing in a selling market. If we were having large balances of trade in our favour to-day with the United States; in other words, if we were selling three to two, a currency at a discount in that country would mare for us and not against us. Why? Bee use we should pay premiums only on che two transactions while getting the benefit of the premium on the three.


Mr. MAHARG:: I would like to ask the minister if our purchases from the United States are greater than our sales to them and our borrowings from them combined -that is, the value of our sales to them and the amount that we borrow from them?


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am very
glad the hon. gentleman has brought that point out because, with much deference, I think there is a good deal of misconception about the economic result to the country. In the first instance, let me cover the ground that I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me in. With the exception of but a few years, Canada has had adverse trade balances. During the period preceding the war, during the period that the London market was open to us, we were large borrowers. I am not referring merely to national borrowings; we were large borrowers in every respect-our railways, our municipalities, our Provincial Governments- as well as individuals controlling large interests, were borrowers. During that period we borrowed money in London to a very large extent, the estimate running all the way from two and one-half to three billions of dollars. During all that period we were using the money which we thus borrowed for the purpose of making good our adverse trade balances. During that period we had trade balances which were favourable to London, and part of those loans went to discharge those balances. But the larger amount of them went to discharge unfavourable balances in the American market, and they were settled by drafts drawn on London.
The hon. gentleman is quite right; just so long as you can go on borrowing, piling up the full amount of the adverse deficit against you, just so long can you maintain your currency without any depreciation in exchange. The one transaction offsets the other; there is no depreciaton. But when you are doing that, you are at the same time helping to create an enormous unseen and unreported money balance against you. You have to pay the interest on your debts, and some day you have to pay your debts, and when that time comes the ultimate adverse balance will be made just so much the greater.
Of course, there are balances besides the trade balance. Just let us look at that for a minute. Besides the trade balance there are balances which can be earned by your mercantile marine, balances which can be earned by overseas investment. England, with a tremendously large trade balance against her, had an enormously large favourable balance on the whole, a balance earned not from its trade in commodities, but earned from the thousand-and-one investments that she has scattered throughout practically the whole world, together
with the earnings of her tremendous mercantile marine. Instead of Canada being in that position of a creditor nation, she is a debtor. As a matter of fact, our adverse trade balance with the United States today is much worse than it looks, because over and above the trade balance, there is the full amount of the money that has to go to the United States day by day and month by month in the payment of interest and other carrying charges. Different authorities give the figure at different amounts. I saw a calculation made recently showing that that balance against us amounted to something like $25,000,000, and probably that is too small. But apart from all that, would the hon. member think that it would be a good thing at the present time to borrow money in the American market on bonds, running for twenty years, because that is the most favourable you could get, at the rate of interest of 7i per cent,-to pay for commodities at comparatively high prices now, but which prices would disappear very, very long before you commenced to discharge the burden that that loan had thrown upon you? As I say this question of exchange is very largely at the bottom of the whole of this trouble. This matter was brought up in the United States on December 7, 1920, by joint resolution. The preamble to that resolution reads in part as follows:
Whereas Canada by an Order in Council, dated November 15, 1917, placed an embargo on the exportation of wheat, which was lifted on August 31, 1920, and the United States also placed an embargo on the exportation of wheat by proclamation of the President, dated August 27, 1917, which was lifted on December 15, 1919, which embargo, during the war, prevented the reciprocal free admission of wheat by Canada and the United States during that period, except under specific authorization, which reciprocal relation now and for some time has been restored, permitting, it is alleged, the free admission of wheat from Canada into the United States to the great detriment and loss of the American farmer; and
Whereas it is reported that great quantities of Canadian wheat, flour, potatoes and other farm products admitted free of duty are being and have been placed upon the American markets in competition with the same products produced by American farmers; that the international exchange situation enables the Canadian farmers to considerably undersell the American farmers in placing their wheat and other farm products on the American markets.
There is the real argument-


Mr. McMASTER:: For us.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member says, the real argument for us. I wonder if he is really thinking what he is



saying, in view of the trade figures, and in view of that discount. Valuable for us! It is the argument which this country has given to our friends to the south. It is something which the American farmer finds very real. He says: The Canadian dollar passes for par in Canada; my dollar passes for par in my own market. The Canadian, when he sells his wheat at the same price at which I sell, gets in his own currency 15 per cent more than I can get in my market. That, Mr. Speaker, is the real reason for a great deal of the present trouble.
The resolution of my hon. friend calls for the adoption of the reciprocity agreement. I have not had an opportunity of making as careful a study of it as my hon. friend, but the adoption of that agreement would mean that the American duties on fresh meats, for instance, bacon and hams, salted meat, lard, wheat flour, oatmeal, agricultural machinery, shingles, lumber, iron ore, cement, and bituminous coal would be raised against the Canadian exporter. Why, the duties on all these articles to-day are lower than are called for by the reciprocity agreement. The reciprocity rate of duty on fresh meat is 11 cents a pound; to-day it is free. Bacon and hams take the same reciprocity rate; they are to-day free. Salted meats take the same rate; they are to-day free. Lard took the same rate; to-day it is free. Wheat flour took a rate of 50 cents a barrel under the reciprocity agreement; to-day it is free. Oatmeal took a rate of 50 cents per 100 pounds under the reciprocity agreement; to-day the rate is 30 cents per 100 pounds. Agricultural machinery took a rate varying from 15 to 20 per cent under the reciprocity treaty; to-day there is no duty at all, machinery is free. Shingles took a rate of 30 cents per thousand under the treaty; to-day they are free. Lumber took a rate of 50 cents to $1.50 per thousand feet; to-day it is free. Iron ore was 10 cents per ton; to-day it is free. Cement, 8 cents per hundred pounds; to-day free. Bituminous coal took a rate of 45 cents per ton; to-day it is free.


John Howard Sinclair: I did not hear the minister mention fresh fish.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think I said fish; I said fresh meats.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Nova Scotians want to know about fish.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think they might be interested in coal. I understand that they are largely interested in this article, and I do not know whether they

think it is a good thing for the Nova Scotia mines at the present time, when they are finding it difficult to get orders, to go back to a duty against them of 45 cents per ton. I have shown what effect the adoption of the resolution would have, having regard to certain items, and the effects have been greater on some Canadian items. For example, it would restore the rate of 50 cents per barrel on flour, and would raise the duty on agricultural implements which now, although not free, enjoy a low tariff. To give a few illustrations : The reciprocity treaty imposes a duty on binders of 15 per cent as against 121 per cent now; mowers, 15 per cent, as against our present tariff of 12J per cent. The rates are the same for reapers. On seed drills, the rate under the reciprocity treaty is 15 per cent and so is ours; weed-ers, under the reciprocity treaty, have a rate of 20 per cent, ours being 15 per cent; manure spreaders, under the reciprocity treaty, 20 per cent against 15 per cent; harrows the same; traction engines, under the reciprocity treaty, pay a rate of 20 per cent, while they are now free up to $1,400. Farm wagons, under the reciprocity treaty, pay 22i per cent,, and to-day 20 per cent; windmills, 20 per cent under the reciprocity treaty, to-day 17i per cent; cultivators and fanning mills are the same. The result, in the opinion of experts of the United States, would be this:
Of imports into the United States from Canada, 7.2 per cent would have been affected, ail 'but one twenty-fifth of these being made free, and that twenty-fifth reduced in duty; of imports into Canada, from the United States, 16 per cent would be affected, one-quarter of these going on the free list, the ramining three-quarters reduced in duty; therefore, under the agreement, the United States would, to-day, be granting a less concession to Canada than at the time proposed, Canada a somewhat greater one.
So that our exports, that would be in any way helped by the reciprocity treaty amount to only 7.2 per cent. The assistance to American goods imported into Canada would amount to 16 per cent-more than double.	[DOT]
While I entirely agree with my hon. friend as to the absolute necessity of doing all we can to maintain cordial relations, what is there that our friends to the south complain of in connection with our fiscal policy? Nothing that I know of. If any hon. gentleman is aware of any complaint made in any respect at all by American exporters into this market, I should like to know what it is; I have not heard it. I think that the House will agree, there-

fore, that there is no wrong for Canada to right, and there is nothing that Canada has to excuse herself for. But the whole of this present issue is something brought about by a request on the part of certain sections of the American public for protection, aggravated and insisted upon in view of the present discount on our money.
The member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), asked about fish. This article at the present time, is free; it was made free in 1913.
Now, my hon, friend says that bad blood is being engendered. I sincerely hope that this is not the case. He complains of statements made by ministers.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I did not; I referred to the matter, but I did not complain.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well, the hon. gentleman referred to these statements as something calculated to engender bad blood. Mr. Speaker, I for one would very much deprecate approaching this matter in any such spirit. I have no idea that any country ever got anywhere by retaliatory measures, and simply because our friends to the south pass a tariff, which they have every right to pass in connection with their own business, but which we do not like, I am not going to say that we should then and there adopt retaliatory measures. But I do believe in having a tariff for Canadians^ and one that is in the best interests of the Canadian nation.
There is no thought of retaliation. We hope, indeed, that the occasion will never arise, but certainly there is no thought of retaliation. If there is one real complaint that the American has against us to-day it is that we have bought too much from them. That is his real complaint, and the advice that has been given to this country by American financial newspapers is that the best thing we can do is to stop some of our purchases in that market. It is not a good thing for the American that our dollar is at a discount there. If it had not been, as I said before, we would not have had very much of this present agitation to-day. But that, after all, is the only thing that can be done. There is one other way of curing the situation, but unfortunately our friends to the south do not seem to think that is a good way-we can effect a cure either by shipping them more or by buying less from them. I do not know any way by which we can compel them to take our goods but we can, and I think we ought to, reduce our purchases.
130i


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer) :: On rising, at the request of my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Crerar), to voice sentiments that I think are prety prevalent in this corner of the House, as well as almost universally in the part of the country from which we largely come, I trust I shall not be unmindful of the fact that there seems to be a general desire that this debate should be brief and that I should comport myself accordingly. I support this resolution very heartily, Mr. Speaker, because, looking at it broadly, its effect will inevitably be to increase international trade in at least one direction. If the obstacle to the flow of a stream are removed to any extent water is certain to trickle through, so that if we interfere with the obstacles to trade, to any extent whatsoever, we shall increase international trade. Now I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that any man of human instincts and a world outlook, with a little economic knowledge added, will agree with Mr. Lloyd George that what the world wants in the economic sphere to-day more than anything else is the restoration of international trade. May I quote a single sentence from that great statesman, who has been fifteen years in power in some part of government or another in the United Kingdom and is at present Prime Minister of that country. I quoted these words in my remarks on the Address this session:
If international trade fails I do not care what you do, you will have nothing but starvaton and ruin.
The words are very brief, very emphatic, and I should like to photograph them upon the brain of every thoughtful man not only in Canada but in the world. On that ground, therefore we hail this resolution and we shall support it.
Now my hon. friend the Minister of Finance began his remarks by stating that he would not quote long lists of duties. I do not know whether that was a little quip at the expense of my hon. friend the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) but, whether it was meant as, it was almost as inaccurate a statement as his fiscal arguments were fallacious, because he went on-so rapidly did his arguments fail him, apparently-and quoted rather longer lists of duties than were quoted by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's. Well, I shall avoid the example of both hon. gentlemen in that respect and not refer to specific duties at all.
Now the Minister of Finance asked us on this side of the House a very pointed

question. He asked " Are we not trading enough with the United States?" Well, my answer is very emphatic-we are not. We are not trading enough with the United States; we are not trading enough anywhere. The more trade we do the richer we shall become; so that to restrict trade is to restrict wealth and restrict prosperity. Therefore I give my hon. friend's question a very emphatic answer. We are not trading enough with the States; we are not trading enough anywhere. Why, the sources of international wealth in the civilized countries are extremely simple to explain. Nations get wealth almost exactly in proportion to the extent that they produce surpluses of wealth and exchange those surpluses with one another. International trade is an interchange of surpluses of wealth. That is a fact which will not be gainsaid by anyone that knows anything about economies. So that when we produce in Canada 300,000,000 bushels of wheat in the year, and we only use 60,-* 000,000 of it and have 240,000,000 to send abroad, what do we find? When I came from the west in such a year I find the face of every eastern merchant wreathed in smiles because, as he puts it, we have had a good crop. But the real reason for his smile is that we have increased our production and are sure, to that extent, to increase our trade. Now that is my answer to my hon. friend-we are not trading enough.
Let me just point out in this connection that there is a great deal of confused thought about the value of exports and the value of imports-in trading between nations-exports and imports in purely trade transactions must be equal. In export always buys an import. When what is called an adverse balance of trade arises, it is due to complex causes to which I may refer in a minute. That was the next question to which the Minister of Finance addressed himself. He said " What do hon. gentlemen opposite think of an adverse balance of trade as between the States and Canada?" Well, I will tell my hon. friends opposite what I think of the adverse balance of trade. I think that in the first place it is due to definite economic causes, and the great cause of it is that we are borrowing enormously from the States. I think, in the second place, that the policy of the present Government has been a contributory cause of that operation, because they have been great borrowers. And I think, in the third place, that the best way to alter the adverse balance is to stop borrowing as a

nation. My views on this question are not original, the difficulties in the world to-day in this connection are not new. They were just as present and as potent in the world a hundred years ago when Huskisson, the greatest economist in the Parliament of Britain at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and one of the greatest statesman, definitely laid down principles which are held by all economists up to the present day. We are buying more than we sell to the States because we are borrowing so much from that country-borrowing as individuals, borrowing as municipalities, borrowing as Provincial Governments, and, during the war, we borrowed as a Dominion Government. Many of our Victory bonds are held there now. All these borrowings come into this country in the shape of United States goods and constitute that adverse balance of trade which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance so much laments. In other words, he and his predecessor in office create a condition and then mourn over it. Well, circumstances have compelled them, of course, to give up borrowing as a Dominion Government. Therefore one need not read them a long lecture upon that point.
Now, I want to point out this in regard to the answer I made to the minister's question: Do we not trade enough with the States? Hon. gentlemen say, It would be all right if we could export to them, but it is these excessive imports that cause trouble. Well, I want to point out that with the growth of our trade with the United States last year, While our imports from the States increased, it is true also that we exported $100,000,000 more to the States than we did in the previous year, showing the truth of the fiscal theory I quoted a minute ago, that in the last analysis international trade is an exchange of surpluses. If my hon. friend the Minister of Finance is to answer my question in a different sense and say, we have traded enough with the States, then I want to tell him that just as surely as the sun is shining this moment, if he stops imports from the United States by a tariff, he will to that extent inevitably in the long run also stop our exports to that country. There is no escape from it. A dam would be no dam if it let the waters run upwards while it stopped them coming downwards; it stops the water running either way. An obstacle to trade has that effect. When you shut import out of your country you shut exports in, and to that extent you impoverish yourselves and stop your wealth increase.

My hon. friend used a very vague phrase when he said that the adverse balance of trade was " mirrored in our currency I do not exactly know what he meant. I think I can guess that he wanted to attribute our adverse exchange on the dollar to our adverse balance of trade. Well I want to tell him that he will not find economists of high standing agree with him in that particular. If hon. gentlemen want to understand this question, let them get out of their heads confused thinking upon this subject. The excess of our imports from over our exports to the States is due to the fact that we are borrowing too much money as a nation. The adverse exchange on the dollar is due to the fact that in the States they are nearer a gold basis than we are; in other words, our currency is more inflated than the currency of the States.
Now I come to another point which I think is following closely on the remarks of the Minister of Finance and logically following up this question, and I want to ask the House and especially my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Henders) this question. I know that he knows it well. Why, he has taught me some things about it so far as Canadian tariffs are concerned. If I may say so, my trouble with my hon. friend in fiscal matters just now is to get him to do as well as he knows, but I am hoping for improvement this afternoon and that he will vote for this resolution. If I were asked: What would be the effect, as far as it has any effect, upon the balance of trade of this reciprocity agreement going into operation, I should say that the chances were that it would improve that balance, for the reason that we are in a very much better position to produce an excess of natural products than is the United States. The States is naturally becoming more and more a manufacturing country; we must be for many years a nation that produces a large surplus of natural as opposed to manufactured products. Therefore I say to get a free market and to keep a free market for our natural products in the United States is a certain way of enriching the agricultural population of Canada by providing them with a larger market for their products, and through the agricultural community of enriching the whole nation, increasing the national wealth and the national prosperity.
I think that that really covers the two questions the Minister of Finance addressed to us by way of argument upon this question. He went on to refer to a possible result of this agreement being put into effect
along the line of influencing duties upwards.
I would just like to say in a sentence, that if the agreement were in effect to-morrow as between the two countries, it would fix a maximum rate, but it would not in any way hamper the freedom of each country to alter their tariffs as they might deem advisable. I do not think it would have that effect for one moment. It would fix a maximum rate, but would have no effect in the way of binding us in the matter of a minimum rate.
I support this resolution on these broad grounds. I do not want to make a budget speech on this occasion. I reciprocate and re-echo very gladly and very enthusiastically the sentiment expressed so tersely by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's when he said that both these great nations would get along much better if they traded more freely. I congratulate my hon. friend upon giving utterance to such a statement, because, by implication, he declared that all the nations of the world would get along better if they traded more freely with one another. He gave utterance to a great truth which has been recognized not only by economists but by humanitarians, that if you want the nations of the world to give up fighting one another there is no surer method of conducing to that result than by getting them to trade with one another. No individual, if he is normally constituted at all, ever thinks of going into the house of a good customer and killing that customer. He wants him to live long and to thrive and be prosperous, so that he can share his prosperity by trading with him. Restriction on international commerce, my hon. friend said, by implication, is an injury. Generally speaking, all artificial restrictions of men are injurious to them. Freedom is the thing that is worth fighting for. Freedom is the thing that men have died for in all generations of human history, and commercially both nations would be affected in the best possible way by an increase of their commerce with one another.
Now, I would just like to say one word more, and that is that I at any rate-and I think others near me will agree with me -consider this resolution a somewhat infinitesimal contribution toward the lowering of tariffs, and I should like to couple that expression of opinion with the hope that the resolution does not point to the high-water mark of fiscal zeal on the part of the official Opposition. I trust they remember the fact that the world moves on and that this is 1921, and not 1911. I trust

they recollect-and I think they do-that since 1911 great events have taken place in the world. Many influences have quickened as I hope will be apparent to all in a short time, the process of the nations of the world coming closer to one another, because if there is one thing, Mr. Speaker, that the war taught us it is that the proper relationship between nations is not independence, is not strife, but is interdependence. The war has taught us that no nation, as no man, lives to itself alone; and I repeat the hope that this resolution does not constitute the high-water mark of fiscal zeal on the part of the official Opposition. I feel confident that in supporting this resolution we here incidentally will give great satisfaction to the people of the part of the country from which we come.
I referred just now to my hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Henders) and expressed the earnest hope that on that account as well as on account of his well known fiscal opinions, he would vote for this resolution; I know he would like to do so. And my hon. friend on his right, who comes from Dauphin (Mr. Cruise); I know that he would like to do so. And there is my hon. friend from the south-western part of my own province-a large-hearted man, a man w'ho knows Western Canada and who is not scared of the Americans. My hon. friend from Macleod (Mr. Shaw)-I know that he in his heart is not afraid of Americans. He never used the language, "No truck or trade with the Yankees"; he and I in 1911 stood together supporting trade with the Yankees. I trust that while the world has been moving forward he has not been moving backward. Then there is my friend the gallant colonel who represents Skeena (Mr. Peck). We sat up through a whole night this week on opposite sides of a question. My heart goes out to my hon. friend, because during that night he declared that the pure free trade party in this House consisted now of two members, himself and myself. I ask him to give his tangible proof of the fact that this is not a mere verbal profession of faith on his part and that his large heart goes out to this resolution. There are others; there are gentlemen from Ontario who have been hitherto called Conservatives. I nearly missed my hon. friend from Bow River there (Mr. Halladay). He is my nearest neighbour in Alberta; I know where he is in his heart on the trade question. What an abominable thing this party politics is, after all. If these hon. gentle-	.
men would only come to this free and independent and progressive portion of the House they could vote with one party at one time and with another at another, just as they had a mind to, and they would always then be voting on questions as to whether those questions we right or wrong, not with a vew to retaining any Government in power, or-I hate the thought-perhaps, retaining their own positions for a little longer. But, of course, that' is not present in their minds; I apologize for having given expression to the thought. But I do appeal for some fiscal consistency on the part of these hon. gentlemen. If they indicated that they were going to support the resolution, I believe the Government would tell us at once that it was not a vote of non-confidence and would give the House a free hand in the matter. However, we have not heard anything along that particular line. Now, my hon. friends will excuse my good-natured appeal to them. It is along the line of freer relationships between peoples, greater production of wealth and greater prosperity for every man, woman, and child in Canada, and for every man, woman, and child in the United States, at least to the extent to which it increases international trade.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac) :: The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) has put a light in the window for certain hon. gentlemen on this side. I should have thought that the fate of that other light which was in the window some time ago would have deterred him from following along the same lines. The hon. gentleman, however, has given advice to hon. gentlemen on this side and has. appealed for fiscal consistency. Well, as I look back over the record of the hon. gentleman himself since he came into the House, I fail to see how he can possibly appeal to any one on the ground of fiscal consistency. There is one ground on which he can appeal to any person here, and that is that he has jumped from one party to the other, from one seat in this House to another; he has been under every banner that has ever floated over this House of Parliament since he became a member of it. He has for thirteen years talked free trade, but he has never got up enough courage to move a resolution to test his theories in that regard.
The hon. member has referred to the adverse balance of trade as between Canada and the United States and has attributed it to the fact that Canada has

been borrowing in the United States. I believe that there is an adverse balance of trade as between England and Canada, and in Canada's favour. I suppose the hon. gentleman would give as the reason for that the suggestion that England has been borrowing from Canada.


Michael Clark: Not at all; a different cause altogether.


John Wesley Edwards: It is a poor rule that will not work both ways. I have often found my hon. friend take the same attitude; he propounds fiscal fallacies and follies in this House, announces his theories, adjusting them to suit himself, and as soon as you make some application of his theories or his argument, he says, "Not at all."
The hon. gentleman said that Canada was in a better position to produce an excess of natural products than the United States, and he advanced that as one reason why we should adopt this amendment,-one reason in favour of reciprocity. There is just one great fault with that assertion on the part of my hon. friend, and that is that it contains in its ingredients no element of truth; that is a! 1 that is wrong with his statement. As a nutter of fact, Canada does not produce a larger excess of natural products than the United States; the facts are just the reverse, and if the facts are just the reverse-and I think I can demonstrate very clearly that they are-the argument which the hon.' gentleman used as one in favour of the adoption of this amendment, is one which we may use against its adoption.
Let me call my hon. friend's attention to that point, while we are on it. I know that his present leader has talked along the same line in various parts of Ontario, trying to make it appear that if all tariff barriers were removed as between Canada and the United States, there would be a population of one hundred odd millions over there who would become consumers of Canadian farm products, trying to create the impression that there is a need and a very great need for our surplus farm products in the United States. That is not the case. For instance, let me call attention to one or two things. If this amendment was carried and reciprocity was adopted-and it applies only to natural products; everything that the farmer produces and has to sell is affected-Let us see how the surplus works out. Take, for instance, the total production. Canada produces about two hundred odd million pounds of butter a year, whereas the United States
produce about 1,600,000,000 pounds. Canada produces about 200,000,000 pounds of cheese; they produce 320,000,000 pounds. Canada produces 123,000,000 dozens of eggs; they produce 1,591,000,000 dozen. Canada produces 7,000,000 pounds of wool; they produce 282,000,000 pounds. We produce one bushel of potatoes to their eight. We produce about 130 bushels of wheat to their 600 bushels. We produce about 245 bushels of oats to their 1,186 bushels. We produce 28 bushels of barley to their 173 bushels. In all of those things that I have mentioned, as I am capable of proving, their exportable surplus is greater than our exportable surplus of the same articles from Canada, with the single exception of cheese. Yet these hon. gentlemen talk as if, when you remove the barriers between Canada and the United States, you immediately open up a very large market for our surplus farm products. I might just as well say that the. market for the surplus production of cheese from the county of 1 'rontenac was in the adjoining county of K eeds, which produces more cheese than Froatenac. I might just as well say that the market for any surplus potatoes produced in Quebec was in the province of' New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island. That would be just as sensible, reasonable and logical as the argument advanced by these hon. gentlemen who favour this proposal of reciprocity. They have on the other side of the line-


Michael Clark: More consumers.


John Wesley Edwards: -Yes, and more producers, and they have some 6,361,000 farms to our 741,000 in Canada. They have ten acres under cultivation to our one. They have twelve horses, twelve cattle to our one, twenty-eight sheep to our one, sixteen swine to our one. I have referred to their production of eggs, butter and so on, as very much greater than ours, and their surplus in all these things is also very much larger than our surplus. There is another phase of this matter to which I should like to refer, but I will do so, with your permission, after eight o'clock.
At Six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.


Mr. EDWARDS (resuming) :: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose at six o'clock I was endeavouring, very hurriedly,

to show by quoting a few figures that the surplus farm production in the United States was greater than the surplus farm production in this country. I did so because under the reciprocity agreement natural products are vitally affected. May I be permitted to summarize in regard to a few articles which are of vital importance to the farmers of the eastern provinces of Canada, at least, namely, butter, cheese, eggs, lard, and meats. The exportable surplus of these articles I have named in the year 1916 was some $57,000,000 for Canada, and $271,000,000 for the United States; 1917, Canada $68,000,000, and the United States $390,000,000; 1918 Canada $99,000,000, and the United States $644,000,000, or for the three years, $225,741,000 for Canada, and $1,305,000,000 for the United States. Comparing 1918 with 1916, Canada's exportable surplus of these articles increased by 72 per cent, as compared with an increase in the United States for the same years of 138 per cent. That does not indicate, to me at all events, that the United States presents the market for our products that the hon. member for Red Deer would have us believe.
May I refer for a moment to the question of the adverse trade balance, and in this connection I wish to quote a few words uttered by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) in the session of 1920. The hon. member permitted me to put a question to him in the course of his speech, and here are his words-Hansard, 1920, p. 147:


John Wesley Edwards: The minister also said we should import less.


Mr. CRERAR:: I grant that is one way to help the situation out.
Then he went on to state:
Where does the remedy lie for this condition of our exchange? It lies in greater production in this country and in selling more goods. It lies also in curtailing imports from the United States.
I venture to assert that the removal of every possible restriction so far as natural products are concerned is not a way to curtail the import of these products into Canada. But that was the position taken by the hon. member for Marquette, and I submit that it is not in accord with the position taken by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) in the House this afternoon. Speaking in Timiskaming a short time ago the hon. member for Red Deer said that while there was no doubt in the public mind as to his being an out-and-out free trader, there might be some difference
IMr. Edwards.]
of opinion in regard to some of his followers, but for all practical political purposes there was not one whit of difference between them. Now I find considerable difference in their expressions of opinion at least.
May I be permitted to refer to another remark made by the hon. member for Red Deer. He thinks he sees on this side of the House certain hon. gentlemen who will be glad to support this resolution. Now I am going to give a few reasons, some nine or ten, Mr. Speaker-that is all I shall take time to give-why I think the political vision of the hon. gentleman is very defective and sadly in need of special treatment. Most hon. members of this House will recall that the hon. member on a former occasion told us, in a burst of candour, that he had salved his conscience for giving support to the Liberal party for a number of years by turning the handle of a cream separator and by fraying a piece of binder twine until his fingers were fairly sore. Well, if the hon. member for Red Deer could excuse, shall I say his docile or complacent support of a policy under which the tariff was much higher than our tariff is to-day, by turning the handle of the free cream separator and by fraying a piece of free binder twine, I think I can give him some reasons why hon. members on this side can find ample justification for refusing to support the amendment now proposed. On the following list of agricultural implements, ploughs, binders, mowers, reapers, seed drills, weeders, manure spreaders, harrows, traction engines, separators, farm wagons, windmills, fanning mills, and cultivators, 14 in all, if reciprocity had carried the average duty on these articles would have been 17.33 per cent. The average duty on these articles to-day under our present tariff is 14.64 per cent. There are four articles on that list, cultivators, fanning mills, harrows, and seed drills, on which if reciprocity had carried the duty would be exactly the same as it is to-day. There are nine articles on that list on which if reciprocity had carried the duty would be higher than' it is to-day. There is one article on that list on which the duty is higher to-day than it would be if this amendment carried. These are my nine reasons, Mr. Speaker. Some hon. gentlemen on this side of the House may say: I will not support this amendment because I believe the duties on farm implements should be reduced. I will not support an amendment which, if

carried into effect, will raise the duty on binders from 12i per cent to 15 per cent; on mowers from 121 per cent to 15 per cent; and on reapers from 121 per cent to 15 per cent.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Is the hon. gentleman quoting the duties into Canada from the United States?


John Wesley Edwards: Yes. I have the trade agreement under my hand from which I am taking the figures.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I have no doubt the
hon. gentleman is quite accurate.


John Wesley Edwards: I will not support this amendment because if I do I shall be voting to increase the duty on weeders from 15 to 20 per cent, on manure spreaders from 15 to 20 per cent, on farm wagons from 20 to 22 1-2 per cent, and on windmills from 17 1-2 to 20 per cent. I will not support it because it would impose a duty of 20 per cent on traction engines, which are now free, it would increase the duty from 8 cents per hundred pounds on cement to 12 1-2 cents, and would place a duty of 50 cents on flour, which is now free. These seem to me to be nine good and sufficient reasons why hon. gentlemen on this side can honestly vote against the amendment proposed; they are reasons which, it seems to me, should appeal particularly to the hon. member for Red Deer. If that hon. gentleman could stifle his conscience for a number of years when the Government he was supporting made binder twine and cream separators free but kept on a duty on the whole much higher than at present, then surely hon. gentlemen on this side can justify their position in refusing to vote for the amendment which, if carried into effect, would increase the duties on these articles. I do not know just how to take the hon. member for Red Deed when he says he is giving hearty support to the motion, which proposes to increase the duty on these things. I hope this is an indication, even though rather belated, that the hon. gentleman is beginning to see the light of reason and intends to step aside from his free trade follies and fallacies and come down to a sane consideration of tariff measures. His attitude towards this amendment is certainly one of the most startling things I have seen in this House since coming here. The hon. gentleman who, in season and out of season, has declared for free trade and the abolition of all duties, to-day gets up and announces his intention
to support an amendment which would have the effect of increasing the duties on agricultural implements as I have stated.


Michael Clark: Does the hon. member contend that the adoption of the pact would in any way bind the Parliament of Canada to keep to the duties therein set out? It would not curtail our fiscal freedam for a moment.


John Wesley Edwards: I fail to see how the hon. member can excuse himself in the way he is doing. He says that the object is to obtain free access for our natural products into a market which is already overstocked to a greater extent than our own with the very surplus farm products for which we cannot find markets.


Michael Clark: What are we selling
there?


John Wesley Edwards: Various things.


Michael Clark: Natural products?


John Wesley Edwards: Some, but very few.
Speaking from memory, I think we imported into this country last year nearly two million pounds of butter from six or seven different countries; but we exported at the same time about fourteen million pounds of butter to thirty-five different countries. We circled the globe to find markets for this surplus product. Now, if this amendment is intended to have no effect, as the hon. member would now give us to understand, what is the sense of proposing it? What is the object in moving an amendment which distinctly and specifically lays down certain things, if it is not to have any effect? I am astonished that an hon. gentleman who has had the experience of the hon. member for Red Deer, and who has the ability, which is undoubtedly his, of debating a question, should light upon something so meagre as this, and advance it as an argument.
May I call attention to another matter? Speaking from a party standpoint, I am rather glad that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) has moved this amendment and that it has been seconded by the official leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). It is a very good omen. The member for Shelburne and Queen's, advised very largely by the present leader of the Opposition, in 1911 proposed a similar arrangement. He and the leader of the Opposition, more perhaps than any one else in this House at present, were responsible for defeating the Laurier Government in 1911. Speaking from my

standpoint, I am glad that the policy they proposed resulted in that way. In 1917, the member for Shelburne and Queen's also assisted in defeating the Laurner Government. I am glad of that as well, and I think that if that hon. gentleman and his present leader persist in this policy, as they seem inclined to do, the people of Canada when they have an opportunity, will return the same verdict on this question as they gave in 1911. How did those [DOT] gentlemen come to inaugurate this policy? Let me refer the House to a little bit of history. The leader of the Opposition, who was Minister of Labour in 1909, thought it advisable to investigate the wholesale prices of different articles in Canada. He did so and issued a report covering the period from 1890 to 1909, twenty years. In that report he gave the lowest prices reached by the various articles at any time during the twenty years, and the average price during that period. The report dealt with some 230 articles, of which about 40 were things that the farmer had to sell, while 190 were articles that he and others had to buy. In the report I find that butter went as low as 10 cents per pound, and as high as 32, with an average of 22 cents. Eggs dropped as low as 61 cents per dozen and maintained an average for the whole twenty years of 16 cents. Potatoes went as low as 18 cents per bag, but the average was 68 cents. Oats went as low as 17 cents, and as high as 60 cents, the average being 33J cents. I want to call particular attention to one statement contained in that report, which was issued with the approval of the leader of the Opposition. In its introduction he states that there was "a great agitation"-I quote those words from the report-in this country, "partaking of the proportions of a national revolt against the high prices of food." The hon. gentleman's dreams were disturbed at night by visions of the red flag of revolution, and the spectre of war, carnage, etc., because, according to the figures which he had before him at that time, the farmers were obtaining too high prices for their farm products. It was an awful thing ! The fact that the farmers of this country should get 18 cents a bag for potatoes and 61 cents a dozen for eggs was driving this country right into a revolution. My hon. friend asks: what are we going to do? How are we going to stop the people from rising in arms? How are we going to prevent bloodshed? How are we going to stop these farmers from getting these enormous prices for their products? Think of it-18

cents a bag for potatoes and 61 cents a dozen for eggs! How can we stop it? Very logically he came to this conclusion-we can stop that by opening the doors of Canada to the surplus farm products of the world. By allowing the surplus farm products of the world to come in here, we can bring these farmers down to their knees and make them sell their products at a more reasonable price and so he proposed reciprocity. And the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's says: "Yes, that is the way to do it; we cannot allow this sort of thing to go on. We are going to have all sorts of terrible things happen in this country if our farmers are permitted to obtain $2.75 a hundred for hogs, 75 cents a barrel for apples, and 20 cents a bag for turnips. If that is not stopped we are going to have a revolution and bloodshed in this country. We have to do something to stop it, and the only thing to do is to) open our doors and let the surplus farm products of the world flow into Canada. In that way we shall get such a great supply that prices will go down and our people will get these commodities at a reasonable figure." So they proposed reciprocity, and they came to the conclusion that they would take every particle of duty off all the articles that the farmer produces and they would leave the duty on everything the farmer had to buy.


Mr. WHITE (Alberta) :: In my hon. friend's opinion, would this policy reduce the price of oats in the western provinces, where the price is only ten cents a bushel?


John Wesley Edwards: I do not think any person would send oats to the western provinces when the price is only ten cents a bushel. That is a situation that occurs, and will occur, with almost all farm products at one time or another, when the supply is very much greater than the demand prices will fall in consequence.
It is manifestly unfair to tell the farmer that he must never look forward to obtaining the highest price for the articles that he produces, and there is only one conclusion you can come to if you adopt this proposal-that is that the farmers of Canada will never be allowed to obtain the highest price for anything at any time because, when the doors are thrown wide open, as soon as the prices in Canada become attractive, foreign products will flow into this country and take advantage of those prices. But that will not be the case with ourselves. If this proposition is carried into effect it will not merely affect

trade between Canada and the United States. There are some twenty or thirty other countries that will be affected and will have the same right to send their products into Canada as will the United States, while at the same time retaining their duties against Canadian products going into their country. The thing is so manifestly unfair and unreasonable that I cannot, for the life of me, see how any .person who is interested in farming can give it his support.
The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's did not always hold his present view. He is on record time and time again in this House, and likewise his former leader the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, as against anything of this kind. I can quote statements from the speeches of the hon. gentleman, when he was Finance Minister of this country, in which he spoke year after year in favour of tariff stability, and said that any changes made in the duties on what the farmer produced and had to sell were made along the lines of increasing rather than decreasing the tariff. I could quote the tariff figures to show that that was true. My hon. friends opposite did follow that course, but in 1911-after the present leader of the Opposition had published his report and made his appeal to his colleagues at that time-they made the fatal mistake of acceding to his request and adopting his suggestion that the tariff should be removed from all natural products. Another thing I want to say in that connection is that in my judgment a fatal error in the proposition is that it absolutely loses sight of the climatic difference between this and other countries, and that it seems to lose sight also of the fact that transportation facilities have been so enormously improved that the country which, thirty or twenty-five years ago, was on the other side of the world from us is" to-day our next door neighbour. These are things which apparently these hon. gentlemen have forgotten.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am very sorry to have to inform the hon. member for Frontenac that if he proceeds in addressing the House he will interfere, and interfere very seriously, with the large number of conversations which are going on on the floor of the House and, I am sorry to say, in the galleries.


William Stevens Fielding: It is very unfair on his part.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Everybody shut up.


John Wesley Edwards: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think I can hold my own in making a noise when I happen to have the floor. While I will not undertake to make as much noise as the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) did, still I will try and second him as closely as I can. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's said in this House last session:
I do not think myself as things are going now that we can look to that party-
That is the party to my right:
-for a sound tariff policy.
The hon. gentleman also candidly stated:
I do not even think we can expect to get a -sound and safe tariff policy by a too rigid adherence to every line and every letter of the Liberal tariff platform.
Well, I am not going to quarrel with either of these statements; I think they are absolutely correct. I do not think that the House or the country can rely upon either of these parties at all as to a tariff policy.
I have held that opinion for quite a while, and I am confirmed in it by the attitude of hon, gentlemen this afternoon in bringing this matter to the attention of the House.
Before I take my seat I want to say this much further:	There has never been a
Government in Canada, from Confederation down to the present time, which has done as much in a practical way for the farmers of this country as the present Government has done.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In what respect?


John Wesley Edwards: I will not attempt-because I do not want to occupy too much time and it would take a long time-to fill the void in my hon. friend's cranium. I am not going to attempt to impart knowledge to him on all these matters. He is a young man yet and I would advise him to give a little diligent study to these questions. Then he will not act so much like a school boy in this House.
I have strong reasons for making the statement I did. In the first place grants to agriculture are four times what they were in the years preceding the war. I could refer to many other things in sub-stantation of my statement that this Government have never lost sight of the interest of the farmers. Sir, any Government which would accept an amendment of that kind would be wanting in its duty. That amendment is very much worse than the policy adopted in 1911 because it raises the duties on many articles to a much

higher figure than they are at the present time. The amendment also fails to get after those persons that my hon. friend from Red Deer and his present leader, and certain other hon. gentlemen, are fond of talking about-I refer to the manufacturers. The amendment leaves them entirely alone. It refers to the farmers alone. Why, Sir, I could quote to you the statement made in this House by the hon. member for Red Deer in regard to reciprocity as a means of tariff reform. What did he say? These were his words:
When one thinks of the fifteen-year record of the Liberals in power, which practically amounted to the tariff in full, and not proposed to be touched in any way worthy of the name in the reciprocity * agreement, what patience they had in power compared with their eagerness and impetuosity in Opposition.
I venture the assertion that there is not an hon. member who has displayed either the virtue or the fault to a greater degree than the hon. member for Red Deer. In 1909, in 1910, and again in 1911, he gave a very complacent support to a tariff, which he was pleased to call at that time a revenue tariff-a tariff which is very much higher than the present tariff. It does seem to me that he is very impetuous and very determined in Opposition while sitting on that side of the House and his attitude is very different indeed from what it was when he sat as a supporter of the Liberal Government, which all through its regime maintained the tariff at a much higher rate than the present tariff.
I could quote a great many other statements made in this House by the hon. member. The thing that strikes me as so absolutely unfair is the suggestion to remove the protective tariff from the things which the farmer produces and leave alone the things which the farmer has to buy. In my travels throughout the country I have not found a single farmer, whether Grit or Tory, who would say that that in his estimation is a fair proposition. But that is the proposition of the Kon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. I could quote a statement by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to the effect that the Liberal party had not any intention of going after the manufacturers, but to remove entirely the duty on natural products. It seems to me a very unfair and unreasonable proposition, and I shall take very great pleasure in recording my vote against him.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to address my
[Mr. Edwards.!
remarks to the argument made by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), that if hon. members voted in favour of the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), they will be raising the tariff on certain articles instead of lowering or allowing it to remain where it is. Let me place this proposition before you, Mr. Speaker, that the tariff schedules found in the arrangement made by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's and the late Hon. Mr. Paterson, on behalf of the Dominion Government, and by Mr. Philander C. Knox, on behalf of the American Government, merely established a maximum rate of duties, and that under the agreement it was left open to either party at their desire or will to reduce the duties below those schedules. That is stated in so many words in the American statute embodying and accepting this agreement; and, indeed, the agreement itself so provides. I will quote from the letter directed to Mr. P. C. Knox, Secretary of State of the United States, by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's and the late Hon. Mr. Paterson under date of January 21, 1911:
Nevertheless, it is distinctly understood that we do not attempt to bind for the future the action of the United States Congress or the Parliament of Canada, but that each of these authorities shall be absolutely free to make any change of tariff policy or of any other matter covered by the present arrangement that may be deemed expedient. We look for the continuance of the arrangement, not because either party is bound to it, but because of our conviction that the more liberal trade policy thus to be established will be viewed by the people of the United States and Canada as one which will strengthen the friendly relations now happily prevailing and promote the commercial interests of both countries.


John Wesley Edwards: Where does my hon. friend find the word "maximum" in that?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The word is not found there. But we must remember the circumstances of the case. The American nation offered to us at that time unrestricted reciprocity. We declined the offer, but we made this agreement. In the United States statute there is found these express terras:
Provided that the duties above enumerated shall take effect whenever the President of the United States shall have satisfactory evidence and shall make proclamation that on the articles hereinafter enumerated, the growth, product, or manufacture of the United States or any of its possessions (except the Philippine Islands and the Islands of Guam and Tutuila) when imported therefrom into the Dominion of Canada, duties not in excess-

Mark those words, Mr. Speaker.
-duties not in excess of the following are imposed, namely:
That disposes of the first argument so eloquently and ably set forth by my hon. friend from Prontenac.
His second argument was this: We find in the United States a great surplus of exportable natural products, and we also find in Canada a great surplus of exportable natural products, but as the United States has itself a great surplus of those products we cannot expect to sell to them a great deal of our surplus. I think that is a fair paraphrase of what he stated. Now, I will read to the House, Mr. Speaker, a list of important items which Canada shipped to the United States for the first nine months of 1920. I am giving the values in round figures:
Lumber, lath and shingles. .	.	.	$59,500,000
Paper, all kinds	  50,500,000
Pulp	 31,250,000
Fulpwood	 8,500,000
Hides, furs, skins and leather,
raw and manufactured	..	*	42,250,000
Wheat	 14,250,000
		 3,000,000
		 500,000
		 55,750,000
Dairy products 	 Fish and ftsh products . .		 11,250,000 	 18,500,000 	 7,500,000
		 6,750,000
Now, in that list there	is included a great
number of natural products. But the fact that there is in many lines of natural products an exportable surplus is no argument against reciprocity. We are dealing here not with two small countries but with two great nations, each occupying half a large continent. Take the case of barley: we might find that barley moved, let us say, from southern Alberta into the northern part of the United States; from the Middle States of the United States northward into Canada; from Ontario into New York; from the New England States into the Eastern Townships. That would be quite possible. It is an unsound economic argument to say that if people have a surplus of similar things they cannot trade in those things. Let me give an example. I suppose the city of Toronto is a great centre for the manufacture of soap. If I am incorrect, some hon. member from Toronto will correct me, but I understand there are great soap manufactories there. They, no doubt, are able to export a large surplus of soap, but that does not prevent a well known soap manufactory in Montreal from selling soap in Toronto, and that will be
found true the world over. I turn from the arguments of the hon. member for Frontenacr some of which, if founded on fact, would have had value, but founded upon misapprehension, are of little weight -and I say it with all respect to the hon. member. I turn to the strange mixture of illusions found in the speech of the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). He says, first of all, that this is a motion to delay proceedings. That is what he infers. Could any motion of this sort have been proposed in a more moderate, more reasonable style than this motion was proposed by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's? We are face to face with a really serious condition, Mr. Speaker. We are face to face with the possibility of a very serious trade handicap being placed upon our export trade with the United States, and surely if we can do anything to prevent that, it is worth our while occupying the time of the House for half a day in the consideration of the matter. We are the best customers of the United States; the habits and customs of our people and the facts of geography force us to be their best customer. I say that any policy, certainly any in regard to natural products, which attempts to interfere with the free course of trade between the- United States and Canada is opposed to common sense and opposed to the facts of geography.
But the Minister of Finance went still further. For the last ten years the United States has held out to us a friendly hand. During all that time this offer of reciprocity has remained upon her statute book. The Minister of Finance tells us that if we accept this offer held out for ten years we are guilty of sharp practice. Now, my hon. and learned friend surely never heard during his practice as a lawyer that the acceptance of an offer which had been held out for a long time savoured of sharp practice, especially when its very acceptance would confer a benefit on two great countries, on practically the whole of the people of a continent.
The Finance Minister has attempted to build up an argument against reciprocity, because, he says, it will mean that we shall buy more from the United States. His argument-and I do not accept it-is this: the reason for the depreciation in our currency as compared with that of the United States, the unfavourable exchange situation so far as Canada is concerned, is that we buy more from the United States than we sell to them; therefore he opposes a policy

which will allow us to sell more to the United States. It is true that reciprocity may cause us to buy more, but let me give him a specific instance to show how his refusal of reciprocity would work out in the county which I represent if the Fordney Bill goes into effect. Hon. gentlemen opposite are fond of designating those who believe in freedom of commerce as idealists and unpractical persons. I shall give a specific example to show how this Fordney Bill might work to the disadvantage of the men and women whom I represent and how the acceptance of reciprocity would help to maintain the situation as it is.
The county of Brome is one of the finest agricultural counties in the province of Quebec, and, for that matter, in the Dominion of Canada. Its dairy products are famous throughout our country; a great deal of its cream is shipped to be used on the breakfast tables of Boston. We buy anthracite coal, mostly from the United States, to warm the houses in our villages. Now, according to the minister, the financial situation and the exchange situation would be helped not by preventing us from buying coal in the United States-for the minister is a kindly man; he wants us to be warm in the winter-but by preventing us from shipping cream to Boston with which we pay for the coal that we obtain in the United States. The argument, with all respect to the Minister of Finance, is not a sound one. If there is anything in his contention that the exports from the United States to Canada and the exports from Canada to the United States have anything to do with the exchange situation, it lies in the excess of imports over exports. You will, therefore, arrive at the same result if instead of stopping imports you put a damper upon or offer a hindrance to exports to the United States. I do not think I need labour the point; it is a very plain one.


John Wesley Edwards: Can any reason be '
advanced in favour of the removal of the duty on any article that does not apply with equal force to the removal of the duty on coal?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I am a free trader in principle; I believe that import taxes are a hindrance to trade, and their only justification is for revenue. I do not purpose eliminating the tariff over night. We have been following a false economic system for forty years or more and we cannot change it overnight. I am however quite willing to admit that the arguments which I put forward would apply to anything. I frankly 
admit that I am a man who believes in the principle of free trade; but. from the poinc of view of prudence and a desire to see that justice is done to everybody, I would not propose to bring in any reforms imprudently. My desire would be to bring in reforms in such a manner that all would have an opportunity to adjust themselves to new conditions. I am absolutely opposed to the unlimited perpetuation of privilege as against the rights of the people.


Mr. BUTTS:: Would my hon. friend say that he would like to see the duty removed from coal and steel?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would like to see the duty removed from everything, if that were possible.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not want hon members opposite to be unfair to me. I have always endeavoured to place my position frankly before the House and to say the same things at all times. I believe in the principle of free trade; I believe that commerce should be unrestricted. I am only willing to maintain tariffs for the purpose of raising revenue and I am also prepared to maintain them to a certain extent in order to give people who have enjoyed, or suffered under, tariffs-I believe if the manufacturers of this country only realized it, they are really more hurt than helped by tariffs-an opportunity of adjusting themselves to conditions. The other day I heard of a young boy who was taken to a reformatory school. He had been smoking five, six or seven packages of cigarettes a day. They do not as a rule allow boys in the reformatory school to smoke; but because that boy's system had become so impregnated with tobacco, they had to give him a package or two of cigarettes a day in order that he might gradually come down to normal conditions. I am prepared to deal with manufacturers in exactly the same manner. Let me say this in passing.
I am always . amused at the protectionist speakers on the other side, because at a certain time in their disclosure, they always turn around especially towards their friends who come from the West and say: We the protectionist party have brought down the tariffs lower than any other party has ever done before.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear. '


Andrew Ross McMaster: "Hear, hear," says
one of the protectionist members. If protection is a good thing, why do my hon. friends not stick to it? If commerce is

allowed to pursue its course without restriction, exchange conditions will tend to correct themselves and will in process of time correct themselves. If there is a heavy discount against our
9 p.m. money in the United States, that will tend to foster sales of Canadian goods to the United States, because their money being worth more than our money, we shall be able to sell in the United States more cheaply than we otherwise could; while, if there is a heavy premium against our money in the United States, that will tend to reduce our purchases in that country. These things will be worked out if the law of economics is allowed to have play.
Although governments and individuals may endeavour to interfere with the laws of economics, they can no more successfully interfere with those laws than they can make water run up hill. It follows, as the night the day, that sensible people will buy where they can get the best value for their money and sell in the market where they can get the best price for their goods. Why do I support this amendment? Because, if we could get this reciprocity, limited as it is, in the markets of the United States, we would confer an inestimable benefit on the producer of foodstuffs and other natural products in our country. Once you follow a policy that helps the producer of natural products in our country, those who till the soil, those who reap the harvest of the sea, the mine and the forest, you help every legitimate industry in the country. You cannot help the producer of natural products without helping the manufacturer, the man engaged in transportation or banking or any other department of distribution. There will never be a single dollar's worth of goods bought under reciprocity in the United States unless the Canadian buyer can get better value for his money than he can by buying at home. There will never be a thing sold in the United States under reciprocity unless the Canadian producer can get in the United States a better price than he can at home. This will mean that, as regards the natural products of this continent, you will have one economic area and in that economic area, so far as the matter is not affected by freight rates which have a great deal to do in commerce in natural products, the labour and capital of the continent will be applied to those activities which will bring forth the greatest economic return.
This is a policy not only for the West but for the East of Canada. One of the
greatest centres of population on the North American continent, and I think I may say in the whole civilized world, is that great group of cities centring around New York and containing the manufacturing cities of New Jersey and New England. Get a map of North America; place one leg of your compasses on New York; measure off five hundred miles and swing around the circle; what do you find? Within that circle you will find the whole of Nova Scotia with the exception of Cape Breton, the whole of New Brunswick, the whole inhabited part of Quebec, the whole of Ontario as far west as Sudbury. Complete your circle and outside of it you will find seven-eighths of the United States. The question will therefore be one of freight rates and it must be remembered that a great deal of this territory is served by water communication. If this policy is adopted-and sooner or later it will be adopted, because the intelligent population of the North American continent will not allow their economic advantage to be interfered with by tariffs drawn up by men-this will mean that within that circle Eastern Canada has an advantage over seven-eighths of the United States. I ask those who have the wellbeing of their country at heart to join with the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and to support this amendment which offers not only economic benefit to ourselves but economic benefit to our great neighbours to the south of us, with whom the destiny of this country demands that we should be friends in every sense of the word. If there be one principle of policy which should determine our foreign relations in this country, it is lasting, hearty friendship with the people of the great republic to the south. Let us trade with them as far as we can; let us do everything we can to better relations.
Let me, just in closing, take up one argument which was advanced by the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) not only in this chamber but elsewhere. He is constantly saying, we must not buy as much as we are doing in the United States. Certainly if we can cut off useless luxuries, whether they come from the United States or anywhere else, we should do so as patriotic citizens, but does he suppose it would be wise to cut down the $192,000,000 worth of iron and steel that we bought from the United States last year, or the $127,000,000 of cotton which came into this country largely in the form of raw cotton for our manufacturer? I do not

propose to quote long figures, because they are tiresome, but I want to place before the House and the country this one fact: We require the natural products of the United States just as the United States requires the natural products of Canada, and in the free exchange of these natural products lies the advantage of our common counties. I believe that such a policy will inure not merely to the economic advantage, but to the peace, harmony, and brotherhood which should be maintained among the nations of the world.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford) :: I am pleased in a way that this resolution has come before us at the present time. First of all, I want to deal with the point raised by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) that it is not a want of confidence motion. I have had the privilege of sitting in this House under three governments, for a term of about 15 years, and in all that time I cannot recall a motion made under similar circumstances that has not been treated as a want of confidence motion by the government then in power. That includes a long term when my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's was Finance Minister in the Laurier Government. I repeat, I cannot recall a resolution of a similar nature moved as an amendment to a motion for Supply that has not been treated as a want of confidence motion by the Government of the day, and if the hon. gentleman knew of such a case he failed to mention it to-day.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is mistaken. I stated that there were two cases within my own knowledge. I cited the amendment moved by Mr. Blake, which Sir John Macdonald accepted. I did not suppose the experience of my own department would satisfy my hon. friend, but I thought he would be satisfied with the precedent I quoted, when Sir John Macdonald accepted the amendment moved by Mr. Blake.


William Foster Cockshutt: The hon. gentleman has made a statement, but he has not mentioned the dates or the nature of the resolution. I question very much if such a resolution has been moved since I have been in the House. I was not in the House when Sir John Macdonald was Prime Minister, and my statement was that I did not know of any such resolution since I came into the House, which was in 1904, that had not been treated as a want of confidence motion.
I do not want to take any shelter under that, however. My main reason for voting against the resolution is not that it is a 
want of confidence motion. It is because of want of confidence in the proposal, and in the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's as a guide on this particular subject, that I shall vote against this resolution.


William Stevens Fielding: That is more logical.


William Foster Cockshutt: I have very great want of confidence in the resolution of my hon. friend as being a wise policy to introduce, and I hope to show a reason or two before I take my seat. Of all inopportune times that I can conceive of, none could be more inopportune than the present for bringing down such a resolution. What is the situation? There has come into power in the United States a strongly protectionist Government, which has been besieged to protect the United States farmers against the inroads of products not only from Canada but from South American countries. That Government, true to the trust that has been reposed in it as a protectionist Government, has announced that it proposes to proceed at once with the Fordney Bill and enact it as quickly as possible. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's says: Here is our chance; let us wire down to Washington that the House of Commons at Ottawa has passed a resolution to-night in favour of reciprocity, and then the sword that is suspended threateningly in mid-air and is about to descend upon imports from Canada will be stayed. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) associated with my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) as chief counsel, will send a wire down that this motion has passed, and that they will be down at Washington in a day or two to lay our proposal before the Washington Government. What a humiliating position for this House and country to be placed in! I can imagine nothing more humiliating. I can imagine no better way of bringing about that very thing which these hon. gentlemen are proposing to stay, than by adopting the course they would have us pursue. The very thing you want to keep away from is any act of that sort as being necessary for Canada. The Americans have always been noted as a people that took good care of Number 1. That has been their proclivity from away back, and there is no doubt that they intend to look after Number 1 on this question, in spite of any representations made by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, the hon. member for Red Deer, or the hon. member for Brome. The Fordney Bill is a

protective measure. It is designed especially to protect the farmers of the United States from the inroads of Canadian products and products from other countries. It is not levelled at Canada alone, but will operate against all nations of the world, as I understand it; we are only one of the group.
This reciprocity proposition of my hon. friend has been debated on every hustings in Ontario, and it was beaten out of its boots wherever the question was properly fought out in the year 1911. It hadn't a peg to stand on before the argument was over. It was shown that the Canadian market was in every respect a better market for the Canadian farmer than the United States market, and the same can be shown to-day. Let my hon. friends on the other side who are interested in farm products, if there are such, compare the Chicago prices to-day with the prices in Winnipeg, Toronto or Montreal, and they will find that in almost every instance the prices in this country for our farm products are very much higher than the prices in the United States. I have just had called to my attention that the price of hogs is quoted in Chicago to-day at $10, whereas in Toronto it is close upon $15 and that is only one example of scores that might be mentioned. There is no one who would lose more by the operation of such a proposition as is embodied in this resolution than the Canadian farmer. That is well known. The western farmer has tried to stampede the farmers of Ontario, but he cannot do it. Wherever this matter is threshed out, the farmer of Ontario will tell the farmer of the West that he does not represent him. Look at the duty on eggs-4 cents a dozen. In spite of that 4 cents a dozen, we have seen eggs landed in Vancouver recently by the hundreds of tons from China. They have also come in from the United States in great numbers, in spite of this 4 cents a dozen duty. Take the case of butter, with a duty of 4 cents a pound. My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has just shown that we imported
2,000,000 of butter last year. I am quoting these figures merely to show that if we had not a tariff on farm products, they would be coming into this country in much greater quantities than at present. Our farmers in Ontario at least are protected by the tariff, in spite of anything my hon. friends from the West may say. The farmers of Ontario, our fruit growers, and I think our tobacco growers and several others all will tell my hon. friend 131



[Stage Direction]
from Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and my hon. friend from Red Deer that their panacea is absolutely no good so far as Ontario is concerned, and that is the absolute truth. Reciprocity as proposed by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's and as contained in the four corners of this resolution has nothing in it for Canada; there is no good to be obtained from it. The reciprocity agreement that my hon. friend now proposes to put into force was voted down in the year 1911 by one of the largest majorities Canada has ever seen. Only in 1917, I think was that majority exceeded. The question was debated upon every possible ground, and on every possible ground it was found wanting. I am one of those who want to remain friendly with the United States; I have travelled a good deal over there, and have many friends over there, but I want to say to this country; if you want to preserve your dignity and self respect in the United States you must show yourselves as men who can take care of themselves, and not men, like my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster), who are prepared on the least pretext to surrender. His policy is this: "Don't shoot, I will come down." My policy is to stand up and fight them, if necessary, on the tariff or any other question.
The only way that we can meet the Fordney Bill, if such a preposterous measure becomes law in the United States, is to have up our sleeves a corresponding style of argument. That policy may be old-fashioned, but I apprehend that it is somewhat British, and I am surprised to find that my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), who in war time is considerably bellicose, is prepared to surrender root and branch and give up the whole field to the United States. That hon. gentleman says that we cannot sell unless we buy. I think that is his doctrine. Well, it is a fallacious one, as anyone can see on the face of it. If the doctrine is true, that we cannot sell unless we buy, why, may I ask the hon. member, is the United States selling to us nearly twice as much as we are selling them? Why do they not have to buy in order to sell? Can my hon. friend tell me that? I think not. It is not necessary to buy in order to sell, Mr. Speaker. What you want is the goods that the world wants at the prices the world is prepared to pay. If you can meet this condition, you will do business every time. I repeat, Sir, that the only way you can meet the Fordney Bill is to stand up like men; and we in Canada have nothing to

[Stage Direction]
fear even from so great a rival as the United States. Sir, we have a better market than the United States, which produces similar goods to our own. Where is that market? It is in Great Britain, in the Dominions overseas, in the West Indies and in other parts of the world where the British flag flies. These are better markets for us any day in the week than the United States, which grows similar products to ours, and which has a plethora in almost every line we produce.
Michael Clark: If Britain is a better market for Canada than the United States, how does the hon. member account for the plain fact that our business with the United States has increased by leaps and bounds while our business with Britain is practically stationary?


William Foster Cockshutt: Well, I do not know that our business with the United States is increasing by leaps and bounds, nor am I so sure that it is falling off with Great Britain. As I read the records, British imports into Canada are a good deal larger than they were, instead of less. They are vastly larger; the minister of Customs (Mr. Wigmore), tells me that there is 100 per cent more coming from Britain alone than formerly. So that our trade with the Old Country is increasing to a great extent.


Michael Clark: You do not believe in imports.


William Foster Cockshutt: Oh, excuse me; I have never said such a thing, and I will' show you that you are full of error when you endeavour to interpret my opinions.
I have several little rods in pickle for the hon. gentleman before I am through. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the market of Great Britain is better for us in every respect, because Great Britain is short of the products which we have most. Everyone knows that. They do not grow as much wheat as they use; nor do they produce as great a quantity of cereals, butter, cheese, eggs, etc., as they consume. But the United States has a surplus in every one of these products, and is our chief competitor in the British market.


Mr. WHITE (Victoria) :: Will you permit me a question?


William Foster Cockshutt: If you do not ask too many. I am quite an oracle, but I do not want to be interrupted too often.


William Henry White: Is Great Britain a better market for our cattle than the United States? That is an important question.
 *


William Foster Cockshutt: It certainly is; the only drawback is that we want it open.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Foster Cockshutt: Go ahead; when I said "open," I did not refer to the tariff.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Foster Cockshutt: Hold on; you will get it a little later on. .


Joseph Archambault: That market is Cockshutt now.


William Foster Cockshutt: 
Michael Clark: As a matter
of fact, our cattle can go there alive.


William Foster Cockshutt: Yes, my friend, but how long do they live?


Michael Clark: They do not want to eat
the cattle living for the purpose for which they are sent there.


William Foster Cockshutt: 
Michael Clark: You cannot eat them alive.


William Foster Cockshutt: No, and you do not want to have them eat them alive, I presume, in their unfit condition. But nobody suggested that the hon. gentleman should eat cattle alive. Altogether, I think this is a rather lively argument which the hon. member for Red Deer has precipitated. Now, if the Fordney Bill becomes effective, who is going to pay the duty? I see the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) is evidently getting ready for something, and I want him to answer that question. If the Fordney Bill is put through, and a duty of 30 cents is placed on wheat, 15 cents on barley, $3 per hundred on cattle, and $2 per head on sheep especially, who is going to pay these duties?


William Stevens Fielding: Especially if the goods do not go over.


William Foster Cockshutt: Oh, do not worry
about the goods not going over. My hon. friends angularly opposite, Levites mostly-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Foster Cockshutt: If these duties are
put on, I want those hon. gentlemen to tell me who is to pay them? That is a fair question, and I think the member for Red Deer, as a man who debates all kinds of economic topics, should have shown us in his speech who was to pay the duty. Usually these gentlemen say that it is the consumer that pays it.


John Archibald Maharg: I will answer my hon. friend's question if he will permit me- exactly the same person who now pays the duty on the Cockshutt implements, the consumer.
131J


William Foster Cockshutt: Yes, the consumer. Well, I am very glad that my hon. friend has taken that position. I thought he was going to say that the farmer on this side would pay the duty, because when free wheat was advocated in the West, and the farmers from the West were asking us to get their wheat into the United States, they argued on the floor of this House time and again that the Canadian farmer paid the American duty-in other words, he paid it going and he paid it coming. That is the proposition. Now my hon. friend says the consumer pays the duty. But who is going to consume this stuff? The United States. Well, if they are going to pay the duty what are you squealing about, why are you squealing? If the Fordney Bill is enacting duties and the consumer-in other words, the United States public-is going to consume these goods he is going to pay the duty, so there is nothing at all for my farmer friends to squeal about in that regard. Let it go on I say. They will be punishing themselves as much as my hon. friend says he is punishing himself in paying duty on implements. The farmer usually has admitted that the duty was paid by the consumer and I presume he still takes that view. But if that is the case what is to be gained by the policy advocated by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's, which proposes taking the duty off these items? My hon. friend says this Bill is going to do the farmers of this country immense damage. How is it going to do the farmers of this country immense damage when the American farmer and the American consumer has to pay the duty? It is a beautiful proposition- a proposition, I would say, for the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster). It is a pity that the hon. gentleman did not think of that when he was on his feet; he could have told us who would pay the duty. He comes from the finest agricultural county in the Dominion of Canada,
I understand. The wonder is, Mr. Speaker, that so fine a county should have so small a population as 13,000 people. I wonder that my hon. friend has not brought in more. It only shows my hon. friend that his free trade panacea has not yet made . it possible for the county to grow and blossom like the rose, even though the farmers are so prosperous. I think I punctured the proposition pretty severely when I pointed out to my hon. friend that these duties, which he says are going to injure the Canadian farmer, are going to be paid

by the American public according to the testimony of my hon. friend from Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg). I am glad my hon. friend chooses one horn of the dilemma because he has to take it one way or the other; he can hardly take the ground that the farmer pays the duty coming and pays it going. Yet I have heard farmer members of the House place themselves in that preposterous position.
The hon. member for Red Deer has quite a number of similes, and strange to say, though we differ in opinion, he and I have somewhat the same kind of simile-that is a very strange coincidence. The hon. member this afternoon pointed out that trade was something like a river with a dam crossing it, and he made the somewhat astounding statement that the dam would not permit the water to run either way. Well, it is some river, I should say, if the water does not run either way.


Michael Clark: I said
"stream."


William Foster Cockshutt: Well, I think the
illustration of a "stream" is worse because a stream is supposed to be moving and if it is moving it must be going in one direction or the other. If it does not move either way it is a strange "stream" or a strange "river." However, I am going to make a different argument about my river than that which my hon. friend advanced. I want to put my argument before the House and I think it is an argument my farmer friends will appreciate. Suppose we have trade like a flowing river and a tariff is put on-as my hon. friend would say "an obstruction is put in the stream," or in other words a dam is placed across it. According to my hon. friend from Red Deer we have destroyed the river-the water is being destroyed, it is being put out of business. On the other hand, according to the protectionist, according to the man who understands things properly, if that dam is holding the water back there is being laid up in this country a latent energy that will turn the wheels of commerce round, and not one single drop of the water in that river, or "stream" as my hon friend calls it, is destroyed by the use of that dam. I think any man who has any conception of what happens in streams and rivers through the construction of a dam will see that is pretty sound policy. So that my hon. friend has really given me an opportunity to compliment him on using a simile, but the trouble is that he considers that a dam

would not permit the water to run either way. I say the dam permits the water to run both ways. According to the country in which the "stream" flows and in which it rises-the stream flows in and the stream flows out.
My hon. friend also says that protectionists will not buy. He knows that is not true. We know, Mr. Speaker, that we have to buy, we do buy and we propose to buy; what we do say is that we are not selling enough; and I want to draw the attention of the House to the frequent repetition of an expression used by my hon. friend this afternoon. He accused the Minister of Finante, I think, of saying that we trade too much with the United States. I did not understand the Minister of Finance that way. I want to draw my hon. friend's attention to the fact that he used the word "trading" whereas the minister used the word "buying." Does my hon. friend see any difference between trading and buying? I do, I see a large difference between trading and buying.


Michael Clark: I took down the minister's words, and they appear in my notes. He asked "Are we not trading enough"? "Buying" is not the word he used and I think Hansard will bear out my statements.


William Foster Cockshutt: I accept the correction of my hon. friend. At any rate the hon. gentleman used the word "trading." What we say is that we are buying too much from the United States. Does my hon. friend see the difference? We propose to sell more and buy less. I think that is plain. That is the way to correct a balance of trade and the way to correct the exchange situation; and it cannot be corrected, as my hon. friend proposes to do it, by buying more on the American market when we are already buying a great deal too much. There is a great deal of foolish talk under the head of economics in this House; and my hon. friend from Red Deer-though he uses that word "economic" very frequently and very freely and has read a great deal of Cobden, Bright, and Adam Smith, as well as all those Old Testament worthies that are so highly spoken of in the Scriptures-is a long way off the trend of modern times in thinking that we can learn anything from Adam Smith, or Cobden or Bright. We are too ''bright" already in that respect to have to go back fifty or seventy-five years and start in on free trade. It is not a new

policy, it is as old as the hills-in fact I believe that in the Garden of Eden they probably had free trade when it first started and it has been advocated ever since. This is the proper time, Mr. Speaker, to have a tariff that is up to date. We say to my hon. friend: We want a scientific tariff that is up to date and that will protect the interests of this country in the buying as well as in the selling. I have a homely simile in mind and I want just to show my hon. friend what I mean by the balance of trade. I am going to bring it down to a very small margin in order to show my hon. friend the way that I, as a protectionist, understand the question of the balance of trade: We will have two farmers' wives go to market-we will say in the province of Ontario, because I understand in the West that they do not do anything so small as go to market with a basket; but in Ontario they go to market with their baskets of butter and eggs. Now these two women start off from the home farm. One of them has $5 in her pocket and 1C pounds of butter and 20 dozen eggs in her basket. The other lady has no money in her pocket but she has the same amount of butter and eggs. Both ladies trade with the same storekeeper. The one that took the $5 and her butter and eggs trades out not only all their value but finds that she has over-traded a bit and has to leave $2.75 on the counter in addition. The other farmer's wife is a little more economical, probably she has a little Scotch blood in her veins, and after trading her butter and eggs, instead of the grocer asking her for $2.75 he says, " Madam, have you got all you want to-day?" She answers, " I think 1 have all I need to see me through the week." " Well," he says, " there is $2.50 coming to you." So one farmer's wife goes back home with $2.75 less than she started out with, and the other returns home with her week's supplies and $2.50 additional in her pocket. Does my hon. friend see the difference between over-buying and under-buying? Well, 1 do, and I am -sorry I cannot show it to him. But he will see daylight some day. It is perfectly plain to the man who wants to see it. And what is true in regard to the farmer's wives is true in a larger way of nations. The nation that over-buys right along is going to bring ruin upon itself; there cannot be any escape for it.
So I say so far as Canada is concerned we have been ever-buying. The result is that'our dollar is down to 85 or 90 cents, and the probabilities are that when my hon. friends from Shelburne and Red Deer, and
Brome, get down to Washington with this resolution in their pockets-if such an evil chance should happen that it passed this House, but I have no doubt that it will be defeated-and deposit their grips in the rotunda of the Capital at Washington, knock at the door of President Harding and say, " A deputation from the Dominion of Canada waits on you to-day with certain proposals," the President will ask, " What are these proposals?" To which our envoys will reply, " Oh we wish to revive the reciprocity agreement of 1911." President Harding will then say to them, " Well, what is there in that agreement for our farmers?" They will reply, "We are going to buy more goods from you." To which he will remark, " Well, gentlemen, we think we have been rather ever-selling to you and we are getting a little bit uneasy about our money. If your money is down to 90 cents, on the dollar, we do not see there is much in any further business until you pay off some of the debt you now owe us."
My hon. friend from Red Deer says that the reason the American dollar has not depreciated is because the United States is on a gold -basis. Well how did they get on a gold basis? Because consistently for the past twenty years they have been piling up a balance of trade in their favour and drawing gold from every nation, until to-day they have piled up in the treasury at Washington a bigger reserve of gold than is to be found in any other country. Our dollar is not worth 100 cents to-day because we have had to part with our gold. Why? Because we have bought too much. And we are buying too much today. Therefore, I say to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's: Your proposition to-day is most unseasonable. It is derogatory to the dignity of this House and of the people of Canada, I for one would be ashamed to hold up my head tomorrow if I thought a delegation was going down to Washington to knock at the President's door with any such preposterous proposal as the revival of the reciprocity treaty of 1911. I cannot conceive what my hon. friend was dreaming of to think that this was so opportune a time to fetch down this proposal. There is a time to laugh and a time to pray, there is a time for all things, but I must say that in all my experience I cannot recall a more inopportune juncture for attempting to revive this agreement.
Certainly this resolution cannot pass on this occasion. It would be humiliating in the extreme. It could not possibly have the

good effect that my hon. friend thinks of in improving our relations with the United States. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the way to improve our relations is to behave in a dignified and honest and straightforward way. We have nothing to hide, we have nothing to regret. We are a small nation, and we may be proud and poor, but we have reason to know that in the great affairs of the world during the last few years Canada has played as large and proud a part as even the United States. And there is no reason why we should not be able to manage our own commercial affairs in such a way as to bring the same credit, the same success and the same profound satisfaction to the people of Canada that we got through the glorious exploits of our soldiers in the great war.
I for one hope that this resolution will get a good dig in the ribs to-night. I do not know why my hon. friend from Red Deer has picked out a few hon. members over here that he thinks may jump at the Chance of joining the Agrarians tonight. If he looks up the other side of the House, he can prabably pick out quite a number of hon. gentlemen representing manufacturing districts interested in the paper and pulp and other great industries who will find it quite a hard job to support the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's in this very heterodox resolution. I am sorry that with his years of experience he should select so awkward a time to propound so vicious a policy. I often follow him with respect, and I quite frequently agree with him on many matters, but I must say that today was an off day so far as I can s(ee it-quite an off day. When he goes home tonight and ruminates over the majority that will be piled up against his resolution, I think he will realize that it would have been better for him to have kept it in his hip pocket for a more propitious occasion when the Agrarians would not need to say to him: We will hear from thee on some future occasion when this resolution will be more opportune."
I have the very profoundest satisfaction in voting with all my heart against the proposal of my hon. friend.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) :: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention to reply generally to the speech of my hon. friend (Mr. Cockshutt) who has just sat down, but I am going to pay some attention to a few of his remarks. He says that this is an inopportune time to introduce such a resolution. But reasons have been given to

show that this is the proper time to accept the reciprocity offer of the United States, which has been open to us for the last ten years. And although my hon. friend says this is an inopportune time, he has met none of the arguments presented by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). Those arguments can not be refuted, and I need not repeat them.
My hon. friend, I think, is very much pleased with the Fordney Bill; at any rate he does not seem to be worrying about it. He is prepared to meet it, he says. How? By raising our tariff wall. Well, I expected that my hon. friend would propose to meet the Fordney Bill in that way. Of course, that would involve raising the tariff on ploughs so as to increase their price to the farmers of the country. That is the way he would meet the Fordney Bill; I am very glad he has told us. But if this resolution is adopted and we accept the reciprocity offer of the United States, the Fordney Bill cannot affect any of the things mentioned in the reciprocity pact, unless the American Government repeal legislation which is on their statute book. So much for the Fordney Bill.
My hon. friend had something to say about the British situation in regard to cattle. He says that the regulations with regard/to the importation into Britain of our cattle are not measures of protection; therefore, the cases are not analagous. Well, what is the difference? The obstacle is there, and it does not make any difference what sort of obstacle you put in the way so far as the tariff is concerned; if it is there, it is there.
My hon. friend believes in an open market in the United Kingdom. I am very glad that he is beginning to see light in the matter of tariff. I am afraid it will be a long time before he sees very much, but if he keeps his eyes open he may come to see the light; in time he will come to believe in an open market all round. At least, I hope that will be the case.
The hon. gentleman offers a solution of our difficulties in the matter of the exchange situation between Canada and the United States. He says:	Sell more and buy less.
Well, that would be exactly the effect of the acceptance of the reciprocity agreement. The Minister of Finance rather throws out the suggestion, though not so bluntly as did the hon. member for Brantford, that the acceptance of this offer would have the effect of increasing our adverse balance of

trade. He gives no reason, and I cannot see why it should be so. Let me give some reasons for my belief that the very opposite would be the effect. A great many articles of farm produce common to both Canada and the United States are mentioned in the reciprocity agreement. Now, if we sell more of those things to the United States than we buy from them and we increase the trade in those things, the increased trade will probably be in about the same ratio. Let me illustrate by mentioning a few of the things that the farmers of Canada produce which are being sold in the United States. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1920, we imported of live animals from the United States, including animals for the improvement of stock and all imports under this head, $2,419,004 worth, and we exported similar stock to the value of $47,717,623. Therefore, we should put no obstacle in the way of our trade with the United States in live animals. If this proposal is not ac-' cep ted and something in the nature of the Fordney Bill is put into effect, our market for live animals in the United States will practically be done away with. We imported from the United States grain of different kinds, leaving out corn, to the value of $2,691,000, while we exported over $20,000,000 worth. Of hay we imported $538,000 worth and exported $3,675,000 worth. Of potatoes we imported a little over $8,000 worth and exported $6,819,000 worth. Of milk and dairy products the value of the imports was $852,000 and of the exports $11,201,000; of fish, imports, $1,689,000, and of exports $17,417,000. Surely, therefore, it would be of some benefit to us to increase this trade, and the acceptance of the reciprocity offer would have the effect of increasing our exports generally-at least, of increasing the proportion which exports bear to imports. If it is a serious thing to have an adverse balance of trade, hon. gentlemen on the other side should jump at this opportunity, if they are sincere in their professions.
I wish to say a word or two in regard to an argument advanced in the first place by the Minister of Finance and since taken up by some others, that is, that if the reciprocity pact goes into effect there will be an increase in the duty on some few agricultural implements. It is true that the arrangement made between Canada and the United States did not fix the duties suggested as maximum duties. But I think no one will imagine for a moment that if the United States wished to reduce the duties
on any of the articles mentioned in the reciprocity agreement, we would object. Would the people of the United States object if we reduced the duties or left them where they are now? Would they object if we insisted on a reduction of the duty on binders from fifteen to twelve and one-half per cent? The idea is absurd. The contention of the member for Brome is correct from a legal standpoint; and I think hon. gentlemen opposite who are lawyers will agree that these were intended to be maximum duties. The member for Brome has given proof of that. When the United States Congress brought in legislation to carry out the reciprocity agreement they interpreted it as establishing these as maximum duties. Therefore, we must assume that the United States government or legislature were absolutely correct in their interpretation of that clause, and they interpreted that as a maximum. But even if it were not so, what great harm would result? We would, it is true, pay two and a half per cent more duty on our binders and mowers- those are the most important things-but we would have some implements at a little lower rate of duty and others at a little higher rate, so that there would be very little difference. What difference would there be in comparison with the tremendous gain we would make in the United States market with our cattle, hogs, sheep and wheat? My hon. friend refers to hogs. It is quite true that the price of hogs is sometimes quoted at a lower rate in the United States than in Canada. But will my hon. friend say for one moment that the quality of hogs in the United States is equal to the quality of hogs in Canada? Will he say that the quality of bacon in the United States is the same as the quality of bacon in Canada? He will not; he knows that he dare not compare the average quality of hogs sold in the United States with that of those sold in Canada.
I do not know whether it was he who said that in certain cases lately the price of grain in the United States was lower than in Canada. Of course, it is lower, and why? It is lower because the American dollar is worth more than the Canadian dollar. If barley is quoted to-day at 86 cents in the United States and at $1 in Canada, which is the higher price? Will my hon. friend tell me that? Supposing there is a fourteen per cent discount on Canadian money, is not the eighty-six cents in the United States actually the same price as one dollar in Canada? My hon. friend ignores that altogether; it

suits him to ignore it; but he knows, as a matter of fact, that such commodities have not sold in the past and are not now selling generally at a lower rate in the United States than in Canada.
"~We hear a great deal about the fact that the United States is exporting wheat. We do not, however, know how long that will last, and I do not think the people of the United States expect to export wheat for a very great length of time. But supposing they do, do they ever export their best hard wheat? Do they ever export a bushel of their best hard wheat? They have not enough of it by hundreds of thousands of bushels; they require and buy our hard wheat for mixing with their wheat, and they afford the best market in the world for our producers of hard wheat.


Michael Clark: (Red Deer):	Made in
Canada.


Levi Thomson: There
are in the world no people who put the same value on our choice Canadian hard wheat as the people of the United States and Canada do, and the people of the United States are and will be our best market for our hard wheat. If you shut off that market from us, we shall be great losers.
I do not wish to take up any further time. I think this is an opportune time to bring in this measure, and I think the man who votes against this resolution is assuming a tremendous responsibility; he is assuming the responsibility praeti-
10 p.m. cally of bringing the Pordney Bill into force in Canada. If my hon. friends opposite want to assume the responsibility of practically themselves introducing that Fordney Tariff Bill into Canada, they may do so. I do not purpose joining them for one minute, and, with all my heart, as my hon. friend says, I intend to support the amendment of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding).


Robert Hamilton Butts: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) seems to be obsessed with the one idea of reciprocity. It happened some years ago that, as far as I can remember, he got a pretty bad jolt on this one question, and it happened that shortly afterwards he lost his seat in this legislature. I do not think he would be here to-night if it were not for the fact that the ex-Prime Minister prevailed upon his supporters to allow my
[Mr. Thomson.
hon. friend to get in by acclamation, and I think he is seeking his ruin for a second time when he adopts this course. It seems to be a most peculiar thing that he, having been one of the first lieutenants of the late lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier, should so far have turned aside from the doctrines of that former Prime Minister, as my hon. friend has to-night, in view of the experience that he has had in the past. In 1907, in a speech which he delivered at the Imperial Conference, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
There was a time when we were wanting reciprocity with the United States, but our efforts and our offers were put aside and negatived. We have said good-bye to that trade and we now put all our hopes on the British trade.
On another occasion, in the year 1897, the said lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
If we know the hearts and minds of our people at present, I think I am not making too wide a statement when I say that the general feeling in Canada is not in favour of reci-would have given many things to obtain the procity # There was a time when Canadians American market. There was a time when the market of the great cities of the Union was the only market we had; but those days are past and over now. We are not dependent on the American market now.
Those were the words of the late lamented chieftain, under whom the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's served with a very great degree of subserviency. But he also served under the ex-leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie). While that "light in the window" and "the latch on the door" speech of that hon. gentleman is almost historic, still at that time the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's was not altogether a follower of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria. It will become apparent at once to every one in this House that, immediately after the last election, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, not being satisfied with going back on the doctrines of his late leader, sat immediately to your right, Mr. Speaker, and he gradually drew down seat by seat until finally he came over into-what do they call it?- either No Man's land or Van Diemen's land, I do not know what it is. He got there, and he gradually came up until finally he got right to the left of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), so that this House must realize at once-it is apparent to us all-that the hon. member for

Shelburne and Queen's has boxed the compass of politics. He is now back very near to the ex-leader of the Opposition and right next door to the present leader of the Opposition, and is moving a reciprocity resolution notwithstanding the fact that Ms late leader, his ex-leader, and his present leader would not deny that they were in favour of a duty on coal and steel. None of them will deny that.


Frank S. Cahill: Oh, yes.


Robert Hamilton Butts: 
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I was just going to ask the hon. member how he brings this correspondence to bear upon the subject before the House. If it were a motion for Supply, the hon. member would be quite in order in traversing any ground, but where there is an amendment to the motion for Supply, the debate must be confined to the spesifie subject contained in the amendment. As to the hon. member's request, it will be necessary in the first place to find out whether the correspondence has any bearing on the subject before the Chair.


Robert Hamilton Butts: I desire to put this correspondence on Hansard to show that the object sought to be attained by gentlemen on the other side of the House is really not

in the interests of the working classes of this Dominion. With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, and, of course, with your permission, I would rather do that than weary hon. members by reading the correspondence that took place between the leader of the Opposition and the then member for Hctou county who was supporting the Laurier Government.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Under exceptional circumstances documents containing tabulated figures have been inserted in Hansard without having been read. In my experience, however, I cannot recall an instance in which correspondence of this character has been submitted by a private member and been incorporated in the Official Report unread. If it has any bearing on the subject before the House, I think it would be well for the hon. member to read it. I doubt very much, however, whether it is relevant to the question under consideration.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we obedient members of the House must always bow to your ruling. Perhaps the next expedient would be to show that the members of this House who were first baptized as the dark lantern brigade, of which we have heard something during this session, were Mr. Macdonald, who then represented Pictou county, Mr. Johnston, who represented Cape Breton county, the present member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean), Mr. Carvell, and Mr. Kyte. That was the original dark lantern brigade. Correspondence was carried on between these gentlemen and the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), then Minister of Labour in the Laurier Government, and it was finally determined that no part should be taken by the Department of Labour on behalf of the miners who were on strike in Nova Scotia for ten months. The only part they did take was to send a regiment of soldiers down there who set up a machine gun at the door of the BridgeporFchapel in the county of Cape Breton, and defied the men to pass a given line.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must remind the hon. member that the subject under consideration is the amendment moved by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), which is as follows:
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question, he omitted and the following- inserted instead thereof:
In the opinion of the House, the Government 6houid bring in a measure to approve, 
ratify, and confirm the agreement respecting reciprocal trade between the United States and Canada signed at Washington on January 21, 1921, by Hon. P. C. Knox, on the part of the United States, and by Hon. W. S. Fielding and the late Hon. William Paterson, on the part of Canada, which agreement remains of the statute books of the United States.
The hon. member is not speaking to the question.


Robert Hamilton Butts: Perhaps I am astray, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to be called to order. Now, coming back to the matter of reciprocity, I can remember an occasion, when I was very young, on which I heard my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's make a speech in the city of Sydney in which he said that if the coal trade of Nova Scotia could not stand without protection, then he would let it fall. I wonder whether my hon. friend would repeat that to-night. If the hpn. gentleman will read that journal called The Coal Age for the month of February he will find that in that month, in Pennsylvania-and the same is true in regard to . other states-they were producing and selling coal at the pit mouth at $1.90 per ton. Let my hon. friend go back to the year when he and the late Mr. Paterson went down to the United States to negotiate the reciprocity pact. In the month of April previous to that, the Dominion Coal Company tendered on a contract for 50,000 tons of coal for the city of Montreal and they were beaten by American companies by 31 cents per ton, notwithstanding the fact that the duty was then 54 cents per ton. I do not altogether feel like absolving the present Government from all blame, although perhaps I cannot saddle it on their shoulders; but during the war the coal trade of Nova Scotia was practicaly crippled owing to the fact that the Imperial Munitions Board took over all our shipping and our St. Lawrence coal trade dropped from two and a half million tons to less than half a million tons. Our shipping had been practically confiscated and we had no means of transportation.
If ever there was a time when this House was in duty bound to do justice and to right a wrong it is now. We should be given an opportunity to regain the St. Lawrence market, which is our only one. My hon. friend from Red Deer is looking somewhat askance at me. In 1868-that is some time back-the United States Government imposed a duty on steel rails, on nails, on I-beams, and on structural iron generally, of $20 a ton, and they found that in spite of that duty England was sending nails

in and selling them right at the steel works in the United States. But the United States did not stop there. They raised the duty a couple of years afterwards, in 1872 I think, to $80 per ton, less 10 per cent, and in the following year took off the 10 per cent and made the duty on nails, rails, I-beams, T-pieces, and all other structural iron, a flat $80 per ton. Now look at' the United States; look at the steel works that have been built there. Can any country in the world beat them? They are supplying labour and dollars and cents to hundreds of thousands of people and they can compete with the world in the iron and steel industry. Just imagine, gentlemen, some of the figures that our bureaux- here in Ottawa will produce! Take, for instance, the coal and the steel business. For the ten months ended January 31, 1921, we imported from the United States $31,704,829 worth of anthracite coal, at the very time when some of our Nova Scotia mines were working two or three days a week. Of bituminous slack, such as would pass through a three-quarter-inch screen, we imported 2,372,984 tons, with a valuation of $10,361,374 when our coal miners were idle, and when their children wanted shoes. Of bituminous "round and run of mine" we imported 9,179,502 tons with a valuation of $51,527,043 and all at a time, I declare to-night, when to my own absolute knowledge men in our mining districts in Nova Scotia were walking the streets idle. And then you talk free trade.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the total?


Robert Hamilton Butts: The total is over $51,000,000 for bituminous coal alone. Now let me appeal to my hon. friends angularly opposite. You are free traders-"in theory," as my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's said. Some of you gentlemen are perhaps older and some younger than I am. Let us recall a little bit of history. Go back, in your free trade theories, to the time of the Franco-Prussian war- about 1870, 1871 and 1872. You men were not producing wheat at that time. Western Canada was an undiscovered country roamed over only by the Indian, the buffalo-and the railway promoter. In those days we in the Maritime Provinces thought, or rather our ancestors did, that it was an awful thing to pay $14 a barrel for flour from wheat that came from Odessa, down through the Dardanelles, through the Mediterranean and so to England. There that wheat was ground into
flour and then brought over in the old square-rigged windjammers which pounded at a sea all day and went around it in the evening. But, they were able to give us flour in those days at $14 a barrel. Within the last year I have paid $16.75 for your flour and yet you are free traders and you do not like the profiteers. You talk of free coal. If we were to give it to you for nothing you would enjoy it better. Take off the trifling 54 cents a ton and that would not satisfy you; you would want the coal miner to go down into the bowels of the earth and dig it out for you free. Yet we must give you $16 a barrel for your flour.
Let me refer for a minute or two to the iron and steel industry. We imported into this country $4,886,000 worth of iron ore in the .eight months ended on January 31, of this year. Now, as to agricultural implements. You are not satisfied with $16 a barrel for your flour but you want free agricultural implements. Do you not see yourselves whose ox is being gored? Of boilers, engines, pumps and windmills we imported $22,717,376 worth. We have got some of the windmills in the House I think. Of castings for farming implements we imported $1,957,311 worth. Is it not a most peculiar thing that when you go through the tariff of this country and follow down the list of dutiable articles the farmers' implements are taxed about fifty per cent less than the products used by any other class in the Dominion or about seven and one-third per cent. We paid to the United States last year for steel and steel products alone $199,916,000. To put it in round numbers I might call the amount $200,000,000. We not only took that out of the factories-we not only took it out of the labouring man, out of his family, and out of his wages-but we sent the money over into a foreign country to build up another and a rival nation. Not only did we do that, but with an adverse rate of exchange, amounting practically to about twelve per cent, we paid that premium on the millions of dollars' worth of goods that we bought from the United States merely for the privilege of purchasing there.
Down in our country we have millions of dollars invested in coal mines and steel works, and when the Budget comes down I hope, Mr. Speaker, to have an opportunity of convincing this House of the necessity of protecting those industries. The right hon. leader of the Government has thrown

his hat in the ring as a protectionist, and we on this side of the House are behind him.
I wonder if my hon. friend the member for Timiskaming (Mr. McDonald), who is a labour member, I understand, is in favour of the free admission of United States coal. I wish I had thought of it a little bit earlier when he was in his seat, because I am sure he would get up and proclaim himself a good protectionist as the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier and the ex-leader of the Opposition.
Since this debate began, Mr. Speaker, almost everything has been dealt with. During the last two or three days and nights we have heard a lot about the Canadian merchant marine. Every time my hon. friend from Eed Deer spoke he propounded a new theory, and he always pleaded that they were free trade theories. Now, I would ask him where could he have freer trade than under Government ownership of the ships that pass in the night? If it was not for the Government merchant marine half of our commercial enterprises to-day would be crippled. Remember, before the war we used to send coal from Sydney harbour to Montreal for 49 and 50 cents a ton. Our shipping was confiscated and put into the business of the war, and to-day we cannot send a ton of coal from Sydney harbour to St. John's, Newfoundland, under $4.25 a ton, although for a similar rate you can send the same quantity from Newport News to Marseilles.
Now, the point of the matter is this, that any person who wishes to strike a blow at Canadian trade and commerce cannot do it any more effectively than by advocating the doctrine of reciprocity, and by voting to-night with my hon. frieni from Shelburne and Queen's.


Mr. J. F. JOHNSTON (Last Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place I wish to thank the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I believe a great mistake was made by the Canadian people when they rejected the reciprocity agreement in 1911. I also wish to congratulate the hon. gentleman for the manner in which he introduced his resolution, for I am sure that he would have been excused by most hon. members had he paid some attention to the political aspects and the reason why this measure was defeated in 1911. In the province' of Saskatchewan from which I come we had but one issue in that election, that issue was reciprocity, and in support of that fact

the people of the province returned ninety per cent of their representatives to this Parliament. That, I think, is proof that they were in favour of wider trade relations with the United States.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that any one who has given thought to economic matters will agree that the salvation of Canada depends upon greater production. And if we produce more, I submit it follows that we must have greater markets. Where are we to get those markets? Our trading with the Mother Country is falling off rapidly. In 1917 our export trade with Great Britain amounted to $800,000,000; for the year 1920 it was less than $$400,000,000, or a drop of more than one hundred per cent In the same period our exports to France dropped from $100,000,000 to $25,000,000. The Government that preceded the present ministry realized that we needed greater markets, and as a result of their search for those markets they advanced credits to various countries, including Roumania and Greece. Now, what has happened in connection with the marketing of our products in those two countries? If I am correctly advised, the interest on those credits has not been paid. Why did not the Government at that time-and this is the point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker-when they realized that wider markets were needed, turn to the great republic to the south of us? Surely that is a better market for our products than any we can find in Central Europe. In this connection I would point out that during 1920 some 60,000,000 bushels of the wheat crop of the Prairie Provinces found its way across the border and
30,000,000 bushels of that wheat, according to the information I have been able to secure, is to be consumed in the United States. Everyone knows that during the marketing of our grain crop last year there was a money stringency in this country. I would like to submit this question to the Government: Do they believe that in the marketing of that 30,000,000 bushels of wheat the money derived from those sales was an embarrassing consideration for the banks of this country during the fall of last year? I think not.
I believe that the United States offers to Canada the most natural and the greatest market that we can have, Canada should not lose an opportunity to meet the United States at least half way. The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) held this resolution up to ridicule, and said that it would be a disgrace for this country to make any such advance. Well,

in the western country we come into very close contact with American people and I have always found them ready to do business, ready to meet the other fellow half way. I submit, too, that this is the right time to take this matter up; if we wait until the Fordney Bill or some other measure of a like character passes the United States House, it will be too late. Now is the time to act, and I repeat that the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's is to be congratulated upon bringing this matter to the attention of the House.( I hope that the Government will for once brush aside its partisanship and accept this motion so that it may be adopted unanimously, because I believe that it would be in the interests of the country; that it would be conducive to greater production, and that it would make available to us a market which, if those who understand the conditions are not mistaken, we will need very badly for our products during the next few years.


William Henry White: I would like to express, Mr. Speaker, what I consider to be the opinion of the people in my section of the country with regard to the resolution proposed by the member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), which deals with a matter vital to their products.
The question is not a new one; as it was tried out in our country in 1911. At that time the representation of the province from which I come was but seven members. In the election of 1911, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the issue was reciprocity, and from Alberta six candidates were returned for the party which made reciprocity the issue. Only one, in the city of Calgary, was elected on .the opposite side. In Saskatchewan there were at that time ten members and nine candidates supporting reciprocity were returned. That shows clearly the feeling of the people of the West on this question, and I have no reason to believe that they have ever changed their minds in regard to it. In fact, I believe they are more anxious than ever to secure the wider markets which would be afforded by the carrying out of the reciprocity agreement.
In 1911, when this matter was an issue before the people, conditions were very much better than they are now. Our markets were a great deal better; our transportation rates were one hundred per cent lower than they are to-day, and things generally were in a much more satisfactory
condition. I have in my hand a paper that I bought on April 8 on leaving Edmonton, which will show what prices are at the present time. I quote from the Edmonton Journal, a paper which gives its support always to my hon. friends opposite. Hon. gentlemen have spoken of sixteen dollars a barrel being charged for flour, the product of wheat; according to the prices quoted here, flour should not be more than eight or nine dollars a barrel. On that day num [DOT] ber one wheat, best grade, was selling at $1.37 a bushel; in fact, it was selling at as low as 52 cents for the lower grades. The highest price quoted for oats is 23 cents; extra number one feed, 20 cents; number one feed, 17 cents; number two feed, 14 cents; rejected-that is tough oats which it was impossible to get to market last fall owing to car shortage-has been selling at 10 cents a bushel. When we come to consider that it costs 15 cents a bushel to thresh this grain, you can see that things are not in a very prosperous condition. The hon. , member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) urged that as the United States had an excess supply of various articles and commodities produced by us, if reciprocity were adopted, there would be a danger of their flooding our market with these goods. Well, it is impossible for conditions to be any worse than they are in Alberta, and if there is any benefit to be gained by the obtaining of a wider market, we should avail ourselves of it.
If the Fordney Bill passes in the United States, it will practically cut the western country out of the c.attle business. Cattle are selling in our country to-day at from four to eight cents a pound, and it costs a great deal more than that to produce them as fattened cattle. Last fall when the cattle were ready for shipment, the prices ran from 2i to 7 cents. One trainload of Alberta cattle owned by a man named Maclay, of High River, and shipped from Calgary to Chicago at that time, sold for $12.50 a hundred. The highest price quoted in that same month by Edmonton and Calgary yards was $7. If the United States market is cut off, with the British market impossible of access, we will have no outlet for our cattle and the cattlemen of Western Canada will have to go out of business. The [DOT]Canadian market will not absorb one-fifth of the cattle we have for sale; we have not a market in Canada for all our cattle and if we cannot get to the American market a very profitable business will be done away with. According to the figures quoted by the hon. member for Brome, we exported to

the United States last year $55,000,000 worth of cattle. We sold $14,000,000 worth of wheat last year to the United States, but with a duty of 40 cents a bushel we cannot sell anything in that market.
We have no other market for oats than Eastern Canada, and this year we find that the railway rates alone to ship a bushel of oats from the province of Alberta to the city of Quebec are more than oats are selling at in that city. Hon. gentlemen who represent eastern industrial districts may think that this is a western question; that western people have been enjoying the benefit of high prices for the last few years, and that the industries of the East will not be affected. I do not think that in the province of Alberta there will be this year fifty per cent of the acreage of last year nor fifty per cent required of manufactured goods in comparison with what was required last year. When the farmers are not using the land, when they are not making any money, when they are not able to sell last year's crop, when they are not spending money, there will be no buying, and there will be more closed factories in the East than there are today. Therefore, this will affect the East just as much as the West, and it will be a wise thing for those who represent eastern districts and industries to do everything in their power to assist those, who come from a part of the country that depends altogether on agriculture and agricultural products, in retaining for them the only market they have. It will be to their interest to look after the interests of the producers of the West, so that the latter may be able to continue in business and to make a profit by selling in the best market.
The hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) stated that the consumer paid the duty in all casesv The duty on Canadian cattle going into the United States will be so high that no cattle will be exported to that country and neither the consumer nor anybody else will have an opportunity to pay duty. The stock raiser will have to go out of business. There is very little chance of the British embargo being removed.
While I am on my feet, I wish to correct an error which was made by Hansard the other evening, and which I found in the unrevised Hansard, I was represented as saying that I did not believe the removal of the embargo would in any way benefit the western cattle raiser. I said that I believed it would be a benefit and that although I had never had any experience 
as an exporter or importer of cattle, I knew that those who were in the business on a very much larger scale than I was were very anxious to have the embargo removed.	t
I am very glad that this resolution has been brought before the House so as to give us an opportunity of expressing our opinions and casting a vote on this question. I hope the amendment will be adopted. If it is defeated, that will be very detrimental to all the interests in Canada.


Mr. CURRIE:: Just before the hon.
gentleman takes his seat, I should like to ask him a question as an expert in matters of cattle and cattle prices. Why are cattle' quoted in the Globe at $9.25, top price in Chicago, and $11.50 in Montreal, also hogs, $9.24 in Chicago, $14.50 in Montreal and $13.50 in Winnipeg?


William Henry White: The men who have real
good cattle do not ship to Montreal. The best dealers like Lane, Maclay and others always ship to Chicago, and I am sure they understand the business better than I do. If there was a better market in Montreal, they would ship there. I do not know what kind of cattle these are. In the Chicago market you can find cattle quoted as low as four cents. Perhaps my hon. friend would find that at the end they were described as "canners".


John Allister Currie: Top heavy beef steers
the very top price is quoted, and the same is the case in Montreal.


Frank S. Cahill: Exchange and freight.


William Henry White: I am not responsible for
what appears or for what the prices are. I know the bulk of the cattle, that is the "toppers", go to Chicago, and I only know of one case, that of a gentleman from Saskatchewan, who bought some cattle from the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Knox) ; he tried the Montreal market last fall and lost a good deal of money over his venture.


Mr. O. R. GOULD (Assiniboia) :: Mr. Speaker, it is very opportune that this question should be presented to the House, for the reason that the Fordney Bill has been before the people of the United States now for some time, and is even
11p.m. yet pending. I think, therefore, a great service to the American people is being performed by having this discussion in the House at this time, so that they may be advised that there is in this country yet a large volume of public

opinion in favour of reciprocity. If the sentiment were allowed to lapse, possibly the American people would be justified in assuming that we did not want reciprocity. Consequently, I repeat that it is my belief that this exchange of opinion to-day on the floor of this House will be noticed by the American people, so that they will see that we have not forgotten what we believe to be beneficial to this country in the way of the reciprocity agreement, and that there is a large number of people in Canada, indeed, I believe, the majority of the people, who will avail themselves of the benefits of the reciprocity offer as soon as they are permitted to do so, and I think that will be in the very near future.
As I have sat in my seat and listened to speeches delivered by hon. members, it has been rather amusing to me to hear one hon. member say that the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) has thrown his hat in the ring as a protectionist and then to hear, I believe it was the hon. member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Edwards), state that the tariff was lower now than it ever was under the reciprocity agreement, thereby endeavouring to claim credit for the fact that there are benefits accruing from a reduced tariff, and trying to take all the compliments that it is possible to take by the statement that the tariff is lower now. That was an indirect admission that benefits do accrue from a decreased tariff. But I am and have been in favour of reciprocity, as I was in 1911 when I met the right hon. gentleman who was then leader of the Opposition (Sir Robert Borden) in the city of Weyburn, I being one of the three who waited on him at that time and asked that his party pledge themselves to support reciprocity if they were elected to power. I regret that he refused to accept our request; he did not give us a pledge; but I wish to point out to the House that the province from which I have the honour to come supported the theory that the committee advanced to him in the city of Weyburn at that time. That was in the year 1911.
If I have a proper remembrance of what my old Collier's history taught me, tariffs have been the cause of many grievous wars. I go back to the year 1837, when what is known as the Opium War was on in China. That was a lesson to Great Britain. English capital was interested in the opium trade, and endeavoured to make the Chinese pay tribute to them in that trade. I believe it is generally admitted that Great Britain learned a great lesson in that war.
Another case was the war of Independence in the United States. We all remember how the Boston tea merchants were opposed to the imposition of the duty, and how they boarded the ships and dumped all the tea into the harbour. I mention these only as illustrations of the fact that tariffs and high duties are the cause of discontent and mistrust among the people; yet this Government and the Government elected in 1911 have maintained high protective tariffs-too high in many instances, we believe. Certain tariffs may be justified, but the fact remains that tariffs have been the cause of more world upheavals and more discontent than any other single factor. I am persauded, and have been for a long time, that a reduction in tariffs will make for more harmonious trade meetings among our people. An illustration of that was given here this afternoon; when an individual trades with his wealthy neighbour he is not going to do him personal or bodily injury.
As to the United States buying products from this country, instances have already been cited, which I need not repeat to the House to-night. I would draw attention to this fact, however. The people of the United States require the hard wheat from our western plains more to-day than they did in 1911, to mix with their softer wheats. In 1911 the States of Minnesota and North and South Dakota were largely engaged in the growing of hard wheats. But to-day that is not so. They are growing the Durum wheats, and they are more anxious than ever to-day to secure the hard wheat from our Prairie Provinces to mix with their wheat to make flour that they can sell in the Old Country in competition with ours. As time goes on, they will require more and more of our hard wheats, to retain their market in the Old Country for their flour. That is another and a sufficient reason, and a growing reason, why reciprocity with the United States should be adopted.
I maintain that the Government should not, and cannot, take credit to themselves because they have accepted some of the provisions of the reciprocity agreement. They now actually admit that some of the provisions of the reciprocity agreement have proved beneficial to the people, but I maintain that they cannot claim any credit, because in 1911 all their arguments were directed to proving that reciprocity would be injurious to the people of this country. I can see no consistency in their attitude.

If the benefits are here now, they were there m 1911; if reciprocity is good now, it was good in 1911, and we should have had it ten years ago. The Government is entitled to no credit for having adopted some of the provisions of the reciprocity agreement which they thought would be beneficial to the people of this country. I maintain that the Government was lax in not putting into operation this reciprocity agreement which was initiated by those who had made a study of economic questions. It was the people, not the Government, who took the initiative, in these matters and presented them to the Government. I' am persuaded that in the majority of cases good legislation is initiated by the people themselves, and for that reason governments should keep their ear to the ground. If they will do that, they will learn what the people want long before the initiative strikes the average individual whoi is elected to Parliament, because the people are thinking; it is the people whose pockets are touched.
I have often thought since I have been a member of this House, and I am speaking as a very practical man, because I have done these things myself, that if I could take the members of this Government out to the West, get them working on a big 40-inch cylinder threshing machine, and say to them early in the morning: "Boys, we will put through 2,000 bushels of wheat to-day," as I have done many a time, I am sure that after working side by side all day long and receiving for their day's labour $2-1 have worked for $30 a month-they would have learned something about economics. They would know something about how the people are taxed, what a burden taxation is upon them; they would know that when the people cried for reciprocity, they knew what they were talking about, and what they wanted. They were in earnest when they asked for it. If I could only get the members of the Government to do that, they would learn a lesson in economics they would never forget. That is one of the places to learn it. I stand here to-day because I believe I have learned that lesson. I have come here to try and make you believe what I have experienced is the truth, and to look at things from the other fellow's point of view. I want you to know that it is an uphill fight for the producer when he has to support such a heavy burden of taxation. He asks for redress because he has a real grievance, and it is the Government's duty to listen to it, and to give the tMr. Gould.]
producers at least some of the things they are asking for.
There is only one thing more I wish to refer to, and that is the statement made by the hon. member for South Cape Breton and Richmond (Mr. Butts) regarding the 50,000 tons of coal sent to Montreal. The Americans undersold the Canadians by 31 cents a ton, even though they had to pay a duty of 50 cents a ton. Notwithstanding that duty, I believe the Americans made money. I believe that is the underlying principle governing this whole thing. I believe an individual can ship his goods in here, pay the freight, and still sell at a profit. He is not going to undersell his competitor at a loss. That is the fundamental principle. I do not believe that the miner receives any more in wages than he should, but there is some one between the man who mines the coal and the man who burns it, and it is that middle man who should be investigated. I believe that that 31 cents and that 50 cents should be traced down to find where the bugbear exists between the producer and the consumer.
The hon. gentleman talked about paying $16 per barrel for flour, and he looked across at us when he referred to that. We are not manufacturing flour; we are simply raising the wheat. If he has had to pay $16 a barrel, and I do not doubt his word, it is not because we received the $16, but because an individual came in between the raiser of the wheat and the consumer. He it was who is responsible for that greatly enhanced price, and I maintain that in the interests of the consumer it is the duty of the Government to look into this spread of prices caused by the middle man. All these things enter into trade agreements, and if you have trade barriers, as you will have if you refuse this reciprocal arrangement, it simply means that these individuals are fenced around in their privileges, as has been shown many times on the floor of this House, and are able to enhance the price between the producer and the consumer.
I shall not detain the House any longer on this question. I believe it is in the interests of the people, and particularly of my people, who will expect me to go on record as favouring reciprocity, as I have done in the past, that there should be embodied in the legislation of this country, as I hope there will be, and always have hoped, provisions similar to those of the reciprocity agreement. Starting with that, we can go on by degrees to free trade, if you wish to call it that, or to a process of

pulling down the barriers and letting the people receive more benefits than they have received in the past, giving them a better chance, and taking away from special interests some of the privileges they have been allowed to retain too long in this country.


Georges Henri Boivin: I was paired with the
hon. and gallant member for Victoria, Ontario (Sir Sam Hughes). Had I not been so paired I would have voted for the amendment.


Michael Clark: I was paired with the right hon. member for King's (Sir Robert Borden). If I had voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. KAY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto East (Sir Edward Kemp). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Redman). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
4TVISED EDITION


Archibald Blake McCoig: I was paired with the
hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Charles Murphy: Had I not been paired with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster), I would have voted for the amendment.
Motion (Sir Henry Drayton) agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Mr. Chairman, in pursuance of the notice given last evening, I beg to move:
That at this sitting of the Committee of Supply, the further consideration of Resolution No. 218 as printed at page 49 of the Estimates for the current fiscal year and the further consideration of the resolution proposed at the last sitting for interim Supply, be the first business of the committee and that consideration of same be not further postponed.
Motion agreed to: Yeas, 100; Nays, 81.
Government Shipbuilding Programme- Amount required for the construction of vessels in accordance with Government Programme, $8,330,000.	'


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queen's P.E.I.) :: When the consideration of this item was postponed at yesterday's sitting I was about to make a few remarks. I did not have an earlier opportunity of speaking on the subject, but having been one of those who sat here during the all-night sitting, and in view of the minister's statement that the greater part of that sitting was devoted to obstruction, it occurred to me that having waited all night for an opportunity to speak I surely ought to intervene in the debate and inform my hon. friend that what he was pleased to call obstruction was simply an effort on the part of hon. gentlemen on this side to secure information and could not in any way be regarded as obstructive tactics.
The few remarks that I intend to offer will be based on statements made by the minister when he gave his annual explanation as to the operation of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. The reasons he assigned for embarking upon this national policy of shipbuilding, as set forth at page 1329 of Hansard, were briefly as follows: First, that the construction of ships for the Canadian Government Mercantile Marine was a war measure. Previous to that time the construction of ships in Canada had been carried on by the Imperial Munitions Board, but the minister expressed the view that it was necessary 
for ships owned by the Canadian people to be built and registered in Canada. I will not comment on that reason at any length -it must stand for what it is worth. The second reason advanced for the shipbuilding programme was that it was intended to assist our railways.
How much ground there is for that statement we may discover when we recall that the predecessors of the present ministry laid their blighting hands upon the one great railway that was intended to carry the products of the West to our Atlantic ports-products that would have yielded freight for the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, or any other vessels engaged in the Atlantic trade. When we. learn also that in Halifax harbour there are fourteen of the Government-owned ships swinging idly at their moorings with nothing to do, we get a further idea as to the truth of this second reason given by the minister. We cannot but come to the conclusion that this second reason put forward by him for building a Canadian merchant marine has not measured up to the expectations that were entertained at the time. The third reason mentioned for the Government shipbuilding programme was the desire to expand our export trade. Now, Sir, we were told that no new contracts had been placed since 1919. That was a year after the armistice had been signed and when it was easy enough for the Government to form a fair idea as to what the next year or two might have in store for shipping. In view of the uncertain prospects they should have cancelled the orders then in hand, as they cancelled the contract with the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, and remunerated the contractors. But what I want to discuss more particularly is the fourth reason for the Government undertaking and continuing this shipbuilding programme. The minister stated that it was in order to give employment to skilled workmen who needed it, and especially to our returned soldiers. The minister's own words in presenting this reason are to be found at page 1330 of Hansard where he is reported as saying:
Now, I explained to the House last year, and I repeat the statement, that the Government's reason for continuing the shipbuilding programme was the serious labour conditions that existed throughout Canada at the time of the signing of the Armistice, and which conditions prevailed through the year 1919. Thousands of skilled and unskilled workmen were out of employment in the Dominion; and, as at that time hundreds of thousands of our brave men were returning from the front, the Government felt that it was its plain duty to carry on ship-

building and to give employment not only to the men then needed in the industry, but to others who were likely to require work, and especially the returned soldiers.
Sir, that was the fourth reason given by the minister for entering upon this policy, and especially for its continuance. Let us turn to the closing part of the minister's statement and see if his explanation in that regard was well founded. The remarks in question, as recorded in Hansard, were:
As I stated a moment ago the war was at its height. Material was high and unskilled as well as skilled labour was hard to obtain.
Therefore the experience the Government had in carrying on this work has shown that the main reason advanced for continuing the shipbuilding programme was not well founded, and when they came to employ workmen in the shipyards they found that the skilled and the unskilled labour needed was not available. In the same statement from which I have quoted it is said that the men engaged in the operation of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine as officers, engineers, ordinary seamen, firemen, stewards, et cetra, number 1,674, of whom 868 are Canadians and the balance not of Canadian nationality. It does seem strange to find that only one-half of the men on these vessels are Canadians, when the Government's primary object in going on with their shipbuilding programme was to give work to Canadians and especially returned soldiers. Under the circumstances we are justified in asking the minister to state how many returned soldiers were provided with work in the Canadian shipbuilding yards during the construction of these ships at such great expense to the Canadian exchequer. We are certainly entitled to know why the public money of Canada has not been paid out to those for whom it was intended. That is a piece of information that should have been given to the committee.
In reply to the statement made by the Prime Minister when introducing his motion withdrawing the item from further consideration "modestly sugesting" that the Opposition did not themselves know why the session was continued all night, I would say to him that it was because of our quest for information. It was very evident that when we were pressing for information the Government were anxious to turn that pressure to their own account by calling it obstruction with a view to imposing the closure, and thereby preventing further light from being shed on the shipbuilding programme.
132i
When he presented his annual statement of the operations of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine the minister was asked by some members on this side of the House, and especially by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff), to explain why the difference of $148,000 between the amount represented for depreciation in the operating account for 1920 and in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1920-he figures being $667,000 as against $815,000-did not appear in the operating account of 1919. The minister passed it off by asking the House to accept the statement of certain auditors, namely, Marwick, Mitchell & Company. He was also asked if the item of $22,000 represented the total outstanding liabilities at that date as shown in the operating account for 1920. It has been stated in this committee that liabilities are outstanding against the Canadian Government Merchant Marine in the city of Halifax alone to the amount of $100,000, and mariners from Other ports have represented that liabilities are still outstanding against the merchant marine in the ports where they have been doing business. In view of those statements I think it is only fair that a full explanation should be given by the minister.
With regard to the auditing of the accounts, we have an independent system of auditing in the Auditor General's Department. That is the only department to which this committee can look for accurate information, and when a financial statement such as this under review is questioned by hon. members it is not satisfactory for them to be referred to a firm of auditors who are unknown to the committee in a public way. Further than that, even in our own independent audit through the Auditor General's Department we retain the right at all times to go into any items upon which further information is required and to call for producton of all papers connected therewith. Up to the present time we have not had an opportunity to go into the operating or any other accounts of the Government merchant marine. I think in all justice, Sir, we are entitled to have those accounts referred to that committee, especially in view of the fact that they have been challenged-I do not think the word is too strong-by members of the committee.
Another matter that has not been properly explained in the minister's statement is the interest account. It has been shown by some hon. members that the interest on the cost of construction for 1919,

amounting to $1,300,000, has been discharged to the extent of $500,000 only; the interest for 1920, amounting to $2,700,000, is still due to the Receiver General, and there is also interest outstanding on advances on account of progress payments for 1920.
In view of the fact that all requests for the information I have indicated have been dismissed by the minister referring hon. members to a firm of outside auditors, I think the committee was quite justified in pressing for that information, and I am at a loss to understand how the Minister of Marine or any other hon. gentleman can say that obstructive tactics were employed warranting the imposition of the closure. It does appear to me that the Government were simply looking for some excuse to apply the closure in order to escape giving the information asked for. In order to put the matter in concrete form so that the minister may give a full explanation, if he sees fit, I propose to put a series of questions which the minister may take an opportunity to answer during the course of this debate. These are the questions:
1.	Why was the difference in depreciation between the amount mentioned in the operating account for 1920 and the amount mentioned in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1920, of $148,000, not accounted for in the balance sheet of 1919 or in the operating account of 1920?
2.	What explanation is given by the management as to the outstanding liabilities known to exist at Halifax * of about $100,000 and at other ports where the boats of the merchant marine have entered and cleared.
3.	Why has the Canadian Government Merchant Marine not paid the full amount of interest due to the Canadian treasury, namely, the interest on progress payments on cost of construction advanced in 1918, the balance of interest due in 1919 of $800,000 out of a total of $1,300,000, the amount of interest due for 1920 on cost of construction of about $2,700,000, and the amount of interest due on advances on progress payments for 1920?
4.	How many keels were laid at the end of 1919, the date when the minister said the contracts were all let?
5.	How many of the 868 Canadians employed on Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships are returned soldiers?
6.	Why are almost one-half of the men employed on Canadian Government Merchant Marine ships of other nationalities

than Canadian when one of the main reasons given for carrying through this programme was to give work to Canadian workmen?
7.	How many returned soldiers were given work in Canadian yards?
I think, Sir, the committee is justly entitled to a full and explicit explanation of these matters before the minister can honestly charge the committee with obstruction and in order to fully justify the carrying out of these contracts.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 
John Howard Sinclair: What is the date?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was assented to on June 6, 1919. This is the preamble:
Whereas notwithstanding the armistice of the eleventh day of November last, and the extension thereof which has been granted by His Majesty and His Allies, has suspended the actual operations of the war between His Majesty and the German Emperior, the Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary, the Sultan of Turkey, and the King of the Bulgarians, it is necessary that measures should continue to be taken for the common defence and security : and whereas it is also necessary to provide for the demobilization of the Canadian forces; and to this end it is expedient that aid as hereinafter provided be rendered to His Majesty: Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows :
Then clause 2 reads that payment of $350,000,000 may be made, for what purposes?
(a)	the defence and security of Canada;
(b)	the conduct of naval and military operations in or beyond Canada and the demobilization of the Canadian forces;
(c)	the promoting of trade and industry, and transportation facilities therefor;
(d)	the carrying out of any measures deemed necessary or advisable by the Governor-inCouncil in consequence of the war; and
(e)	payments made or expenditure incurred during the fisoal year ending the 31st day of March, 1919, for the purposes mentioned in The War Appropriation Act, 1918, and in excess of the amount authorized by the said Act.
So that, all of a sudden, towards the end of the session in 1918, the acting Prime Minister came with a resolution asking Parliament to vote a lump sum of $350,000,000 for war purposes, as alleged in the preamble, and if the minister will refer to Hansard, he will see that on May 7, 1910, it reads:
The House resumed at eight o'clock.
War expenditures, $350,000,000.
And it is out of that vote that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries asked permission to take the appropriation of $30,000,000 odd.


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. It is out of that appropriation that my hon. friend took his $30,000,000. We debated the resolution. I was one of the first to speak on it. I objected to the military expenditure, hut

I was answered by the then Minister of Militia and Defence, the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mewburn), who explained that the money was needed for military purposes. Then we discussed the question of naval expenditure, and my hon. friend gave his explanations. Finally we came to the clause dealing with transportation. That was the shipbuilding programme, and that is where I said that I was in favour of a wise and moderate expenditure for that purpose. I shall read what I said on that occasion. My hon. friend read only part of my speech.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Would the hon.
member kindly give us the date?


Rodolphe Lemieux: May 7 and 8, 1919.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If my hon. friend will turn over a few pages, he will find there was a $30,000,000 vote put under the Marine Department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Possibly, but it was taken out of this vote:
War expenditures, $350,000,000 vote.
Under that vote my hon. friend spoke, and my deskmate, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) also spoke, and then I said:
I am a Canadian, first, last and always, and I sincerely approve of the policy of any government which will promote our shipbuilding and improve our transportation facilities.
A little later on I said:
I stand for a moderate and wise policy of shipbuilding for Canada, and If the Acting Prime Minister, under section 2 of the Bill, intends to apply some of that money for the promotion of shipbuilding and the improvement and development of our Canadian transportation facilities, I shall vote for the amount which is being asked this evening.
But I qualified that statement by adding that the money should be spent wisely and moderately. My hon. friend, however, went headlong and gave contracts to all the shipyards of Canada. My hon. friend persists in saying "You have approved that policy." I said that I would approve a wise and moderate expenditure. My hon. friend, the moment he saw, as was stated by the president of the Bank of Montreal in his address at the annual meeting of the shareholders, a shrinkage in the cost of tonnage as between the prices of 1919 and those of today, should have stopped. Did he not cancel the contract with the Dominion Steel Company when he found out that the prices were exorbitant? My hon. friend said: "I

was approved by the hon. member for Mai-sonnuve." I qualified that approval. Let me go further. Supposing I had fully approved that vast expenditure of money, am I my hon. friend's guardian? Have I anything to do with the Government? My hon. friend had my approval, but it was a qualified approval, and when the hon. gentleman saw the shrinkage in prices, it was his duty, as a minister and an administrator of the King's purse, to stop that wanton expenditure. I say that I criticized that resolution; I warned the Prime Minister at the time. I said:
I am afraid that my hon. friend has become colour blind in money matters. A dollar, a hundred dollars, a thousand dollars-there is no difference between them to my hon. friend. He has been rolling in millions and billions since the beginning of the war, and I am afraid he ha.s lost his sense of proportion. Whether he speaks of one million or one billion, it is all the same to him. Perhaps it is due to the fact that he is an optimist; but there are limits to optimism. My hon. friend should not forget that Canada has a population of barely eight million, that we have a war debt of two billion dollars, and that although the resources of the country are immense, it may not be an easy thing in this general bankruptcy of the world to develop our resources. To develop our resources we shall need the aid of foreign capital, and in order to obtain the aid of foreign capital we must certainly maintain our credit on the safety line, but I am afraid my hon. friend has long since left the safety line.
These are the words of warning which I gave to the hon. gentleman and to the Acting Prime Minister. I criticized conscientiously, I think, the large sum which Parliament was asked to vote on that occasion and under which my hon. friend found shelter to spend the $30,000,000 for the shipbuilding venture.


Georges Henri Boivin: I do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that he has only one minute more.	-


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not intend to go beyond the time fixed by the rules; but I repeat to my hon. friend that it was as easy for him as representing the Crown to cancel any of those contracts as he at first cancelled the contracts with the Dominion Steel Company when he realized that the prices asked for steel plates would, if adhered to, be a scandal in the administration of his department.


Georges Henri Boivin: Alternating between the two sides of the chamber, I should give the floor to Mr. Ballantyne. I must remind him, however, that if he replies immediately to the hon. member for Maisonneuve he

will have exhausted his right to speak, and will be precluded from replying to any other member.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I first of all must thank my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) for withdrawing, partially at least, what he somewhat hastily said the other day about my losing my business reputation in the city of Montreal. My hon. friend said, if I understood him correctly, that when I introduced this shipbuilding policy on April 4, 1918, I stated at that time that it was for war purposes alone.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No. The other day,
when I was critising my hon. friend, I said that I had voted for a moderate and wise expenditure, because although the armistice had been signed we were still at war, and it was a war vote. My hon. friend denied that, and pointed out that the armistice had been signed in November, and that the resolution was introduced in the month of May by the Acting Prime Minister. I point out again that the preamble shows that it was a war expenditure, that the appropriation was for war purposes.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My hon. friend is getting somewhat mixed in his statement. I am referring to the first day when I mentioned the Government shipbuilding programme in this House on April 4, 1918.
I then stated that these ships, in addition to being required for war purposes, would also be required for other purposes. I shall quote only a sentence or two of my statement at that time. I said:
We require ships for our coal trade, we require ships to carry the products of the farm, and we shall require ships to work in conjunction with the Government-owned transcontinental railways.
I quote that just to show that I have been perfectly consistent all the way through. While I said that the war was the paramount reason for the Government adopting this shipbuilding policy, which as hon. gentlemen know received the unanimous approval of the House at that time, I also made it very clear to the House that the Government Merchant Marine would be required to carry the products not only of the farm but of our industries in helping to expand our export trade, and to work in conjunction with the transcontinental railway system, which was Government-owned at that time.
To come back to the remarks made by my hon. friend from Maisonneuve on May 8, 1919, which I quoted in this House the
other day, it is quite true as he says that he made those remarks on a war appropriation vote intoduced by the Acting Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Sir Thomas White, but if my hon. friend will turn back a few pages, to page 2202 of Hansard of May 8, 1919, he will see that there was then under a discussion a vote under the Marine Department of $30,000,000 to continue the Government shipbuilding programme. I have read very carefully the debate on that $30,000,000 vote several times, and I have failed to find one word from the lips of my hon. friend from Maisonneuve opposing this further vote of $30,000,000. The war was over then. This was on May 8, 1919, and the armistice had been signed on November 11, 1918. If my hon. friend held the same yiews then that he holds now, then was the time and this was the place for him to have risen and said: The armistice has been signed and the war is over; I favoured a shipbuilding policy for war only; I cannot give my support to this $30,000,000 vote that the Government is now asking. But he did nothing of the sort. He will not find one word of his in that whole debate in opposition to that $30,000,000 vote. I think my hon. friend was perfectly right in his attitude at that time, and I think he is wrong now in making such a quick rightabout turn. The war appropriation vote that my hon. friend has referred to tonight had nothing whatever to do with the $30,000,000 vote. This $30,000,000 vote was not a war appropriation vote but an estimate of the Marine Department. When the war appropriation vote was up my hon. friend asked the Prime Minister if any portion of that vote would be used for shipbuilding, to which the acting Prime Minister replied " yes " and my hon. friend went on to make his speech, but what 1 want to make abundantly clear now as I did the other day was that when this $30,000,000 vote in the Marine Estimates was under discussion, if my hon. friend held the views then that he holds now, he should have opposed that $30,000,000 vote but he did not do so. No matter how my hon. friend may have argued a moment ago the Hansard is there to prove my statement that I have had the support of my hon. friend on the shipbuilding policy right up to the present session. My hon. friend thinks that he now senses public opinion against public ownership. I do not want to take up the time of this committee like hon. friends opposite have done by reading reports from newspapers from one end

of the country to the other but wherever hon. gentlemen opposite have read an editorial against the Government policy I could have read a dozen in favour of it.


Frank S. Cahill: Why did you not do it?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I would not waste so much time. I am very glad that hon. gentlemen do oppose the Government shipbuilding programme, because as a rule my hon. friends opposite are to be found on the wrong side of public opinion.


Mr. CASGAIN:: You will see at the next election.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: And I thank them for their opposition to one of the most popular policies that has ever been introduced and put into effect by a government.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The minister is at sea.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My hon. friend talked for hours and hours the other night and I think he ought to allow me to continue my remarks without further interruption.


Mr. RINFRET:: Provided the minister addresses the Chair.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My hon. friend from Maisonneuve has referred to some financial men in the city of Montreal, he knows and I know that the business men in Montreal are opposed to public ownership; they have been so for years and are so now, so it is not to wondered at that the president of the Bank of Montreal or the president of any other bank should voice an opinion against public ownership. Hon. gentlemen opposite, especially my hon friend from St. James, Montreal, take a great deal of delight in quoting the Montreal Gazette, but I notice that my hon. friend never quoted any of the great French Papers of Montreal. La Presse of Montreal with a daily circulation of 140,000 has had nothing but commendation of the Government shipbuilding programme. The same is true of La Patrie. When my hon. friends get an opportunity to go before the constituencies they represent in this House, especially my friends from the province of Quebec and the Maritime Provinces, they will find a very strong public opinion in favour of the Government mercantile marine. Make no mistake about that. As I said a moment ago, hon. gentlemen opposite generally get on the wrong side of these public questions, and therefore I do not very much mind the strenuous opposition they have offered to this vote. Now, there are some ludicrous sides to public 
life. My hon. friends the other night deliberately planned to obstruct the passage of this item.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Well, we have the right on this side to entertain our own opinion on that point. The member for Queen's (Mr. Sinclair) sat silently with his brave colleagues on the other side the other-evening from half-past nine o'clock, right on until the following afternoon at four o'clock, and yet he says now that the minister gave him no opportunity to express his opinion on the Government's shipbuilding programme. He therefore has to rise tonight in his place and register his opposition to it. I am amazed at the conduct of hon. gentlemen. They were so hard put to it to keep the debate going that my young friend from Charlevoix (Mr. Casgrain), the member for St. James division (Mr. Rinfret), and the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill), had to make a dozen speeches; and as the night wore on and the grey dawn came, I could see these young men giving out.


Frank S. Cahill: Not at all.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Well, you looked like it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We are good for
another night if you want it.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: These gentlemen, I am sure, would have welcomed the member for Queen's had he entered the debate which they started. Now, Mr. Chairman, I rose principally to state that the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) gave the Government and me his full support, by voice and vote, in connection with the $30,000,000 on May 8 last, and nothing in the pages of Hansard will appear to the contrary.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 
Michael Clark: The programme was completed twice that year.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The hon. member for
Frontenac and the Prime Minister the other day endeavoured to hold me to what they considered my share of responsibility for this whole vote passed on this occasion, May 8,	1919. That vote, as
the minister has pointed out, was
for $30,000,000. I should be glad if the minister would give me his attention. When Parliament voted that money it was not an instruction to the minister to go on with shipbuilding; it was only an authorization for him to spend money upon ships; and if the minister had exercised that good business judgment which I believe he has always displayed in his private business, he would have recognized the fact that everywhere in the world ships were being built and only one result could ensue, namely, an increase in shipping, whicih would mean a decline in rates as well as a decrease in the cost of producing ships. The minister knows that today the world has almost 20,000,000 tons more shipping than in 1914. Did he cease letting contracts? No, he did not. And here, let me remind the committee once more that this was after I had left the Government. After July 1, 1919, contracts were let for 20 ships by my hon. friend the minister.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: By tender?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I do not know.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Will you allow me a question?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Gertainly.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My hon. friend
was a member of the Government when it was decided to continue the shipbuilding programme for reasons that I have already given. My hon. friend was a member of the Government when the thirty millions were voted. The other ten millions my hon. friend talks about was in addition to those thirty millions and constituted a balance from the previous year.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The Minister of Marine stated on July 5, that the supplementary vote he was then asking for was to complete the shipbuilding programme. Now does he mean to say that when he came back the following year and asked for twenty millions, as he did on March 23, 1920, and when he comes to-day and asks for this vote of eight millions as he is doing, that this is in accordance with his statement of July 5, 1919? It requires a very far stretch of the imagination to see it. But let us come back to this matter of building ships. I want the committee to understand this fact. My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) made his statement the other day in good faith-I am quite certain of that-and I do not for a moment wish to attribute any bad-faith

to my right hon. friend the leader of the Government. He made the statement that I was in the Government when every contract was let. He later corrected that statement as far as two ships were concerned. But I point out to the committee, and I take my information from the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the year 1919-20, that after July 1, r_ 1919, contracts were let for twenty ships and of these, contracts for ten ships were let in 1920.


John Wesley Edwards: Where does my hon. friend get his information?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I take the information from the report submitted by the Department of Marine and Fisheries which I hold in my hand. I could even give the names of the ships, but I do not wish to do that because it would take too much time. Any member can find the information on page 15 of the report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1920.


John Wesley Edwards: May I ask my hon.
friend one question?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I have only twenty minutes at my disposal.


John Wesley Edwards: I will only occupy a second and it is in order to get information. Can my hon. friend tell me how many contracts were let after March 31, 1920?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There were two contracts let after March 31, 1920. Accord-[DOT] ing to this information these contracts were let on April 7 of that year, for ships to be built in Vancouver. Now I think that pretty effectively disposes of my hon. friend's contention. I recognize this fact -that in the changing conditions taking place after the termination of the war a decline in values was bound to occur, but I think fhe Minister of Marine and Fisheries is open to criticism in this respect, that he did not foresee the decline in the value of ships that was taking place. They saw it in the United States, and I want to tell the committee that many of the United States shipyards were dismantled long before my hon. friend quit letting contracts in Canada. To-day what are the circumstances? We have sixteen ships, according to the information given to the committee the other night, under construction in shipyards in Canada. I am told that two ships were recently put upon the stocks in the
TMr. Crerar.l
city of Halifax, and those ships are costing the country $191.50 a ton on an average. We are building ships to-day, as a result of this improvident policy. When they are completed we can* turn round and write off fifty per cent of the cost and then they will be overvalued. That is anything but a sound business proposal bearing in mind the financial conditions this country is in.
Now I want to offer a word of criticism
and I wish to do it in a most friendly manner because I am sure the Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows that I have no personal animus towards him-of the balance sheet submitted by the minister the other day. If we have a bad situation in regard to our ships let us face it frankly. I know that is what my hon. friend does in his private business, and that is what every other hon. member has to do in similar circumstances. The depreciation allowed on these ships is apparently just about sufficient to write them off in fifty years as nearly as I can figure it. If I am wrong I want to be corrected.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am sorry the hon. member was not here during the allnight sitting as the hon. member for Red Deer was. He then would have heard my explanation in that regard. However I have no objection to explain it again.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I will read your explanation.


Ernest Lapointe: The debate must close at two o'clock and the minister should seek the permission of all the members of the House if he wishes to speak.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Michael Steele: The
hon. member for Marquette asked a question and I understand the minister is willing to answer it.


An hon. MEMBER:: He has exhausted his right to speak.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: At any rate I think I am quite correct in this statement that if the shipping company had been charged interest on the value of the ships turned over to it at the rate of the Government are paying on the Victory loans the people of Canada subscribed for, the deficit on the operations of these ships would not be short of $1,000,000 for the past year. That is not a sound business position, and I think it is as well for us to place the facts frankly before the people. They should be

told just what these ships are doing financially and whether they are operated on a business basis. The minister talks about the splendid financial position the venture is in. He says that no bank loans are shown in the balance sheet and the operating company is in an easy position financially. No wonder it is in an easy position financially. When this country is putting up all the money for the building of these vessels it may well be. But I would suggest to my hon. friend-and this is the last word I have to say-that if he is in a position to bring in another annual statement to this House-which is a very problematical thing-I hope that it will give the position of this shipping concern in a plain business way such as any ordinary business concern would do in presenting a statement to its shareholders.
Upon Mr. Stevens and Mr. Sinclair rising together:


Michael Steele: The
hon. member for Centre Vancouver has the floor.


Mr. BELAND:: I rise to a point of order.. May I call attention to the fact that when the hon. member for Marquette was given the floor the hon. member for Guysborough and Antigonish (Mr. Sinclair) was on his feet, but the Chairman recognized the former. You, Sir, were not in the Chair at the time.


Mr. STEVENS:: I am quite willing to yield to my hon. friend.


Georges Henri Boivin: It has always been usual to hear hon. gentlemen from each side alternately. That is the reason I recognized the hon. member for Vancouver Centre.	[DOT]


John Howard Sinclair: I neecj scarcely tell the committee that I am opposed to the shipbuilding policy of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I never approved of that policy from its inception, and I took occasion several times to tell my hon. friend what my views were in regard to this matter. On Monday night I spent the evening with him. We talked the matter over and we were very frank with one another in exchanging our views. I said that as a business proposition his policy was a mistake and he was not able to convince me to the contrary. The minister has taunted us with reading newspaper extracts. There were some newspaper extracts used, but I have no recollection of quoting any
myself. But when my hon. friend refers to newspapers, I want to draw to his attention the fact that there is a prominent newspaper in the city of Ottawa, called the Ottawa Journal, that has condemned his policy. I also want to tell him that there is a prominent paper supporting the party to which he now belongs, published in his own city, the Montreal Gazette, that day by day has condemned his policy; and I know no more sound financial paper in the Dominion. We have in the province of Nova Scotia a leading Conservative paper that has supported the Conservative party for the last forty-five, years or more, that faithfully supported the Union party, and that now supports the present party in power, but there is nothing that paper can say too strong in condemnation of the policy of my hon. friend. These facts we brought to his attention the other night, and I was surprised to-night to learn that the only newspaper that he was able to quote in his favour from Cape Breton to Vancouver was La Patrie of Montreal. I do not have the pleasure of reading that newspaper and therefore do not know much about its views, but if it is true as my hon. friend contends that the press is with him he should have been able to cite other newspapers besides La Patrie.


John Allister Currie: What about the Globe?


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Some Hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Allister Currie: I can rise to a point of order.


Michael Steele: The
hon. member for Guysborough has the floor.


John Howard Sinclair: In my judgment, Mr. Chairman, the little group of men who stood to their guns on Monday night and presented this item from passing did a national service. They focussed attention on this question, and the newspapers from one end of the country to the other have given it a good deal of notice since that time. I want to say also that the official Opposition got very effective help on that occasion from my hon. friends from Red Deed (Mr. Clark) and Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg). Now the people know the facts, to some extent at least, and if after knowing all the details they want to have another white elephant on their hands like that which the Minister of Railways has presented to them-


John Dowsley Reid: We have not got any.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough),: I say if they want to have another white elephant like that which the Minister of Railways now has on his hands, that is their own affair and they will have themselves to blame for it.


John Dowsley Reid: You gave us a white elephant.


John Howard Sinclair: My
hon. friend says that we gave him a white elephant.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


John Howard Sinclair: I want to tell him that he was very willing to take it. Besides that is only a baby elephant compared with the Canadian Northern and Grand Trunk. I have watched my hon. friend's career as Minister of Railways, I know his responsibility in regard to those matters and if I had the time to tell him all about it, it would put him in a serious light before the country. We all know my hon. friend is to a very large extent responsible for the railway situation. He is responsible for the Canadian Northern deal, which he put through this House by closure. He is responsible for the Grand Trunk deal, which he also forced through this House against the best that we could do in opposition to it.


John Dowsley Reid: That was a good bargain.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


John Howard Sinclair: But
when the Grand Trunk deal was put through the House, if I recollect rightly, my hon. friend told us that it was going to be a paying proposition.


John Dowsley Reid: So it is.


John Allister Currie: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman is not speaking to the resolution.


John Howard Sinclair: We
were assured that the Grand Trunk would help pay for the other lame ducks placed upon the country.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Chairman


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


John Allister Currie: A point of order is always in order.


Michael Steele: Order. The hon. member for Simcoe rises to a point of order.


John Allister Currie: My point of order is that the hon. member is not speaking to the motion; he is discusing railways, not shipping.


Michael Steele: I am sure that on being reminded that he is departing slightly from the question the hon. member will return to it.


John Howard Sinclair: I was interrupted by the Minister of Railways, hence the digression. In my remarks I made the mistake of calling this movement a policy. I submit that it is not a policy. If my hon. friend the Minister of Marine had devised some policy by which the people of Canada could become a shipbuilding and ship-owning nation, then he would have done an important service foi the country. But that is not the kind o: policy that he has launched. Why, Mr Chairman, anyone could do what the hon. gentleman has done. He has built ships at profiteering prices. That is all. It does not take very much statesmanship to do that. The chief messenger of the House of Commons, if you gave him $2,000,000 and sent him out on the streets of any city on this continent or on the continent of Europe could purchase a ship as good as the 10,000-ton ships that my hon. friend has built, pay the market price and have a balance over sufficient to make himself comfortable for the rest of his life. So this is really not a policy at all; it is spending the people's money by giving contracts to build ships at profiteering prices.
But there is one point to which I particularly wish to refer, and it is my principal reason for getting on my feet tonight. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister, in his speech last evening, attempted to fasten on the Opposition responsibility for the position we are now in in regard to this shipping policy. Here is what my right hon. friend said:
That policy was embarked upon, if I am correctly informed, with the unanimous approval of this House in the first place. That was in the spring of the year 1918.
You will notice his language: the policy was embarked upon with the approval of the House of Commons. I wish to be permitted to contradict that statement. The

Minister of Marine announced this policy in Montreal on January 4, 1918. Referring to a statement which I find in that well-known publication by Castell Hopkins, The Canadian National Review, p. 440, I find the following:
Mr. Ballantyne's Shipbuilding Projects. As Minister of Marine and Fisheries and Naval Service, the Hon. C. C. Ballantyne devoted much attention to the promotion of shipbuilding as a war-time necessity for transportation and a great impetus to Canadian industry and after war prosperity. On January 4, 1918-
You will note the date, Mr. Chairman.
-he announced an elaborate Government policy in this conection which would implement pre-election pledges.
I would like to know to whom the preelection pledges were given in the election of 1917. Were they given to those parties who subsequently got the contracts?
Under it the Government proposed to utilize, to their utmost capacity of about 300,000 tons annually, all existing Canadian shipyards for the production of modern steel cargo steamers.
The point I would like to make is that on January 4, 1918, the minister announced his policy in Montreal. This policy was therefore not inaugurated with the consent of Parliament. It was started behind closed doors in the usual way in which this Government have carried on all their policies 

by Order in Council. Proceedings were taken under that Order in Council prior to the date when Parliament heard of the shipbuilding policy, and we are told by the Review I have quoted that the policy was announced to implement pre-election pledges. The fact is-and I want the Prime Minister to note it-that he entered into this shipbuilding policy months before Parliament knew anything about it. He did not wait for the approval of Parliament; he launched the policy under Order in Council and it was announced by his minister on January 4, 1918, three months before it was reported to Parliament. Contracts were let and ships were in course of construction when Parliament first heard of it. This was admitted by the minister when he made his first statement on April 4, 1918, when the minister made his announcement in the House of Commons. He used this language:
At the present time we are having two ships built by the Vickers Company of Montreal-
"At the present time"; that is April 4, 1918.
-we are having two ships built by the Vickers Company of Montreal, one of 8,100 tons dead weight capacity, an 11-knot ship, and another of 4,350 tons.
In addition to the two ships that are being built by the Canadian Vickers Company for the Canadian Government, another ship of about five thousand tons is being built by the Wallace Shipbuilding Company at Vancouver. Another vessel of 3,550 tons is being built by the Collingwood Shipbuilding Company, of Collingwood.
This statement appears in Hansard of 1918, volume 1, page 346. It appears, therefore, that three months before the policy was announced in the House of Commons it had been adopted by the Government by Order in Council, money had been spent, keels had been laid, ships were in course of construction." Is it fair under these circumstances for the Prime Minister to say that the policy was inaugurated with the consent of both sides of this House? I say, Sir, it was inaugurated without the consent of anybody in the House of Commons; so far as it appears, the Prime Minister did noit even consult his own party. The responsibility for this shipping programme rest altogether upon the Government. This baby must be placed on their doorstep along with the number of others of the same type.
It has been admitted by my hon. friend, admitted by everybody, that this shipbuilding programme is a losing business, I pointed that out to my hon, friend in 1919, but he would not listen. I tried to persuade him to drop it but he hardened his heart. The calculation I made at that time was a very simple one, and in order to remind the Minister of it I will repeat it here;
I took as an illustration one of the 10,000 ton ships that he has built in the shipyards at Halifax. These ships cost approximately $200 a ton; therefore the total cost of one ship would be $2,000,000. I want to compare the fixed charges on that ship with those on a ship built on the Clyde or in any of the yards in Europe and Britain prior to the war. There are millions of tons of shipping on the sea now which were built prior to the war and which cost only $50 a ton. I make that comparison not for the purpose of showing that ships could be built for $50 a ton at the present time, but to emphasize how impossible it is for my hon. friend to make any money, with the present rates of freight, in competition with ships built at $50 a ton. Now, take the fixed charges: insurance at 3 per cent would be $60,000. I submit that careful business men approve of 5 per cent depreciation on the capital invested. A steel steamer is a very perishable piece of property; the machinery has to be renewed, the hull will rust and boilers have to be re-

newed every ten years. An average life of a steamer is supposed to be about twenty years and then you must have money enough to replace her, if you are to remain in the business. The insurance at 3 per cent would be $60,000; the depreciation at 5 per cent would amount to $100,000. The interest on the money invested on the construction of these ships would be figured at the rate of 5 1-2 per cent, or $110,000. The total fixed charges, therefore, would be $270,000. In other words, the steamer would have to earn $270,000 before she could begin to make a profit for her owners. Now, take the fixed charges on a steamer of the same size, and the same earning capacity as the 10,000 ton ship, costing $50 a ton. The total cost would be $500,000; insurance at 3 per cent $15,000; depreciation at 5 per cent, $25,000; interest at 6 per cent-for I suppose a private owner would have to pay 6 per cent-$30,000; total fixed charges on that ship $70,000. The fixed charge on the ship built at Halifax is $270,000; subtracting one from the other you have a handicap of $200,000 as against my hon. friend's ship. How then does my hon. friend expect under these circumstances to compete and pay his way with vessels built at one quarter the cost. That is to say, a ship built by my hon. friend in Halifax will have to earn each year $200,000 more than the other one in order to keep out of insolvency.
That is not, however, the whole story. Those hon. gentlemen who were here a few evenings ago when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Foster) was getting his Estimates through will remember that we passed subsidies for certain lines, and amongst those lines I want to give the committee three that are competitors with the lines on which the Government propose to put their ships.


Michael Steele: The hon. gentleman has one minute more.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


John Ewen Sinclair: My time should not be exhausted by these interruptions. One of these routes was to Australia. As regards the route to Australia, my hon. friend is paying his competitors $130,000 of a subsidy so that the Government ships-will start with that handicap. Another one was to hte West Indies. We voted $340,000 for a service to the West Indies. According to the Minister of Marine three Government ships are to be put on this route. The same is true of the line to Newfoundland. I say it is bad business to put Government ships
[Mr. Sinclair.)
on a certain route and then for the Government to pay its competitor a sum of money to enable the competitor to drive the Government ships out of the business.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Mr. Chairman-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Mr. Chairman-[DOT][DOT]


Joseph Archambault: M. l'Orateur-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Chairman


Mr. DECHENE :: M. l'Orateur-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I'desire to say a few
words in reply to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar), as well as a few words in reply to the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). The minister, of course, is not permitted to make further statements-


Ernest Lapointe: Your time is up.


François Jean Pelletier: Mr. Chairman-


Michael Steele: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr Stevens) has the floor.


François Jean Pelletier: Four or five hon.
members stood up. I should like to know who will be recognized next.


Michael Steele: I might point out just at this moment that the hon. member, having spoken, has exhausted his right to speak. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was saying, Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Marquette who, I am sorry, is not in his seat, that he was seeking to justify his action when he was a member of the Government. I wish to point this out to the committee, for the purpose of clearing up what was apparently a misunderstanding in the mind of the hon. member for Marquette, that the contracts for the ships were arranged for and awarded during 1919. Some of the terms of the contract, it is true, were under discussion and were not finally settled until the early months of 1920; but as regards the awarding of the contract, the last one was awarded in December, 1919. But this does not change the important feature which was pointed out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Ballantyne), and that is this, that when the policy was launched, when this House undertook the expenditure of, first, $30,000,000 and later other expenditures, the leader of the Agrarian party, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) was a

member, a consenting member of the Government to this matter, and, furthermore, he supported it in the House. My hon. friend made another point-and it was also referred to by the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough-that the depreciation is not properly taken care of by the method of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and his staff. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries pointed out the other day that he set aside, as a fund for depreciation, two per cent. That has been brought into question; it is quite right that it should be, and I am going to make an explanation which, I think, will meet the question raised by the hon. member (Mr. Sinclair) as well as the hon. member for Marquette. Two per cent set aside and invested at 5i per cent interest compounded for twenty-five years represents the whole cost of these vessels. In other words, the department secured from an actuary a careful figuring of what was necessary to set aside for a fund which would fully cover the cost of the ships over a period of twenty-five years. That, I say, is a sound, safe and businesslike policy.


John Howard Sinclair: Can
the hon. member give us those figures?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can; I happen to have them under my hand. I have not the exact figures but the hon. member can figure them out readily. Two per cent amounts to about $20,000 a year, and at 51 per cent compound interest for twenty-five years, he will find that it comes to the value of the ships. That is a sound businesslike proposition. My hon. friend suggested five per cent. Five per cent treated in the same way would far more than cover the need.


John Howard Sinclair: These ships were built on borrowed money at 51 per cent. What about the interest?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am glad my hon.
friend raised the question, because it reminds me of something that was overlooked during the discussion the other day. In 1919, out of operating profits, the minister paid $500,000 of interest into the Consolidated Fund, which was the complete interest charge for the ships in commission at that time. It is true that this year the department was not able to do the same thing to the same extent, but last year interest was paid. I admit what my hon. friend is driving at, that in case the operating expenses do not provide for the
full interest charges, that would be an accumulating amount and there is no question of that. I want however to make this point quite clear, that two per cent set aside makes absolute provision for replacement of the ships in twenty-five years' time.
My hon. friend raised another point as regards installation of boilers every ten years. That is a question of repairs. After the first or second year, there will be annual repairs to these ships; engines will have to be repaired in part; plates will be bent or worn out or rusted, and they will have to be replaced. All that, however, will be charged up against operating expenses. That is a part of the ordinary repairs from day to day and from year to year and does not enter into depreciation at all. The depreciation fund is provided in the way I have stated. It has been suggested repeatedly in this debate that a full depreciation, figured on a basis of the cheapest possible ship to secure in the world as compared with the cost of these ships, should be written off this year. That is the most absurd suggestion from a business standpoint that I have heard. Take, for instance, any man's business, whether it is in goods or in a plant, machinery or anything else. Simply because the market has temporarily collapsed and fallen, he does not during that period, or in that year, or in that accounting period, write off the full amont of the supposed or alleged loss. No business man will do that. If he makes a fair provision for depreciation, he is doing all that can reasonably be asked. I draw attention to the exact figures set aside for depreciation this year, $667,665.46. That is the amount, and I contend it is sound business. Does my hon. friend or any other hon. gentleman, who has been vigorously attacking the minister in the last few days, suggest that trading conditions of the world are going to remain in their present, abnormal unforeseen and unexpected condition for the full period of twenty-five years, or even for	ten or five	years?
Nobody thinks that for a moment. I think all hon. gentlemen will agree with me in this, that this condition was utterly unexpected. It is true that some business men foresaw that a time would come of what is known as reconstruction, a time when business would have to be re-adjusted, but I suggest to my hon. friend who has just taken his seat this: that when the hon. member for Marquette, the hon. member for Lunenburg, and others attack the Min-

ister of Marine in terms something ike this-you should have foreseen this business collapse and not entered upon this policy-they are condemning in those very terms their own lack of wisdom, because not one of these hon. gentlemen foresaw it himself.


Frank S. Cahill: We told him to sell the ships last year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Year after year they have supported the Government programme. It is true that last year there was some mild opposition; it was not very vigorous.
Let me say a word or two to my hon. friend who has offered, I will not say harsh, for he never is harsh, but some criptic criticism at all events. He said a moment ago that this policy was introduced by the back-door route. Now that is not'a fair statement, with all due deference to my hon. friend's usual fairness. What were the conditions? Simply these. In 1918 the world was appalled at the loss of tonnage, literally appalled; this House was appalled; and when the Minister of Marine in the fall of 1917 or the early winter of 1918 decided on his policy and announced it in January in Montreal, what did he do? He did not wait, it is true, until the House met before he arranged to give contracts, because you cannot start the construction of a large ship in a day or so; it takes a couple of months at least to gelt the thing under way. What did the minister do? Knowing the need, he took time by the forelock and let one contract before the House met, and for that he has been criticised. I say that if he had not done so, he would have been criticised at that very session.


John Howard Sinclair: I was criticising the minister for saying that this measure was introduced with the approval of both sides of Parliament. My point was that it was not, but that it was introduced by Order in Council three months before Parliament knew anything about it. I was not talking about the necessity on account of the war.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am talking about the necessity on account of the war and pointing out why the minister took the action he did. I have this to say to my hon. friend. The Minister of Marine came to this House early in 1918 and announced what he had done. He laid on the table his Estimates, and sat in this House and reviewed those Estimates day after day with

my hon. friend sitting opposite. He did that in 1918; he did that in 1919; he did that again in the fall of 1919; he did it last year, 1920; and here we come to 1921, the fifth session, and this is the first word of criticism of the introduction of this policy.


John Howard Sinclair: I opposed it in 1919 and 1920.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend, it is true, made some criticism last year, but I submit that up to within the last half hour not one word of criticism has been offered of the introduction of this policy. My hon. friend has sat silent in his seat for four years and now he comes to-night, five sessions afterwards, and says that the policy was introduced by the back-door route, and hon. gentlemen opposite cheered his statement. What is the inference? If there is any intelligence in the remark, if there is anything in the cheers, they mean simply this, that the minister did something that was wrong. Yet hon. gentlemen sat silent for five sessions, never said a word about it, not one solitary word. I say criticism of that kind is unfair.
Now I come to another point. It has been stated that there is no support of this policy in the press of this country. The Minister of Marine said to-night that he would not take up the time of the committee reading long editorials, but there were placed on Hansard the other day several excerpts from different newspapers in the country, from the Toronto Globe, the Vancouver Province, the Winnipeg Tribune, the Mail and Empire, Toronto; The Sydney Post, and the Hamilton Spectator. I am not going to read them again because they are all on Hansard, but I submit that there are many, many other articles in the leading newspapers of this country approving this policy, as the whole country approved of it when there was, seemingly, prosperity behind the venture-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Seemingly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, seemingly. It was endorsed and accepted by hon. gentlemen opposite, but when the collapse came, when we were in a difficult position-


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I thought there was a surplus. Does my hon. friend admit that there was a collapse?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I said a business collapse. My hon. friend cannot twist my words in that way. I have used the term repeatedly, that there has been a business collapse.


Joseph Archambault: Collapsible
boats, he means.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There has been a complete business collapse throughout the world, particularly in shipping. Now I am going to read an article from the Toronto Globe of Wednesday, April 13, 1920; that is to-day. I notice that my hon. friends opposite have been very anxious to quote from the Montreal Gazette, which I think every one in Canada holds in high regard as a paper of standing, but with very definite views on certain lines, and particularly is it opposed to public ownership. Now I am going to quote from the Toronto Globe, which my hon. friends opposite will agree with me is worthy of consideration in an expression of views on a subject of this kind. On the fourth page of to-day's Toronto Globe, in an editorial under the heading ''Canada's Merchant Marine" I find this:
The Government's Merchant Marine System is vigorously attacked by the Opposition. The reasons for establishing it were explained by Mr. Bailantyne in a recent statement to the House of Commons. First, it was necessary to replace losses in shipping tonnage occasioned by the war. Second, it was advisable to complete the chain of transportation afforded, by the National Transcontinental System of railways. Third, it was desirable to create facilities for the expansion of Canada's export trade. Peace removed the first cause, but the shipbuilding programme was continued for the purpose of furnishing employment to returned soldiers and others. There are now in commission 47 vessels, having an approximate deadweight tonnage of 259,783 tons. The entire programme, when completed, will be 63 vessels with a dead-weight tonnage of 374,284 tons.
Then, after another paragraph, the editorial concludes-


Frank S. Cahill: Read it all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will if I have time. The editorial concludes with this:
Canada has on her hands a fleet of ships that must either be sold at a sacrifice or operated in connection with the Canadian National railways to the best possible advantage and with the very highest business ability which can be attracted to the public service. The Globe believes the latter course to be in the public interest.
I have read that for this particular purpose; my hon. friends opposite suggest as the sole solution of this question that the ships should be sold. The other day I pointed out to them the lack of common business sense in attempting to sell these ships at this particular time when, as they themselves say, the shipping market is at the lowest ebb it has reached for many
years. I submit that the point we have been urging right along is a wise one, that these ships should be operated in conjunction with the great Government Railway system for the purpose of developing export trade, and operated as part of the great system of nationally-owned facilities of this great Dominion. That is the policy urged by the minister, and it is the policy that is supported by the Toronto Globe. It is the hope expressed in the various articles to which I have referred in the numerous papers I have cited. My time is up, and I will resume my seat.


Mr. DUFF:: I had hoped that after the urgent appeal from hon. members on this side on Monday night and Tuesday morning, addressed to the Minister of Marine, seeking information on these Estimates, the hon. gentleman, when he rose to-night to take up twenty minutes of the time of the committee, would have endeavoured to throw some light on matters which at present stand in need of explanation. During the time he occupied he took no notice whatever of the representations made by members on this side of the House who, from 12 o'clock on Monday night till 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon, tried their best to elicit some information from the minister. The hon. gentleman tries to make the people believe that members of the Opposition have deliberately attempted to block his Estimates. I do not think that any one can successfully contradict me, however, when I refute that suggestion and say that we on this side have done nothing of the kind. We did try to get certain information to which we are entitled, and which should be given to the committee to enable hon. members to consider the Estimates intelligently; and if the minister had been able or willing to give that information, it would have greatly helped matters and we should have been able to allow him to report progress. However, he did not comply with our request; we got no information of any kind. I do not blame the minister, because, as I pointed out, on different occasions, he has been placed in a very embarrassing position by somebody, whether the Government or the merchant marine people, I do not know. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), has endeavoured to corroborate the statements and the figures of the minister, but I affirm without fear of successful contradiction that no business man in this country, looking over the statements audited and vouched for by Messrs. Marwick, Mitchell



and Company, would regard them as correct. The minister says that these gentlemen are expert accountants. They may be; but these statements which they vouch for are by no means to their credit. I have not sufficient	time to give many
reasons for this assertion, but I may state one. The operating account for 1920 stands:
Operating Account for 1920
Gross Revenues closed	voyages.	$10,027,422	77Operating expenses	
8,733,917	22Operating Profit Closed	voyages.	$	1,293,525	55
Deduct

Depreciation..$667,665.46
Outstanding liabilities	 22,000.00
Incorporation expenses..'	 5,400.00

	$695,065	46
Net earnings closed voyages 598,460 09 Net earnings on voyages closed since January applicable to 1920	 183,000 00
Total net earnings.. ..	$781,460 09
These auditors have approved of this statement, but the member for Vancouver Centre, as well as the Minister of Marine, admits that during the year 1920, no interest was paid to the Finance Department by the Canadian Government marine for the money they had borrowed from the Government. I would ask any business man present in this House to-night whether after making up the statement of his affairs at the end of the year, he would not include in the liabilities of the concern, whether an incorporated company or a private business, the interest he owed either to banks, private individuals, or any one else. I submit that when Marwick, Mitchell and Company made up this statement for the Canadian Government marine, and left out of the liabilities the interest that was due the Government for the moneys advanced for construction purposes, they did not make up a correct statement. According to the minister's statement, the vessels which were in commission last year, some 47 in number, cost $50,000,000. Parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, I beg to apologise to the members of the committee for the fact that my voice is somewhat poor to-night; I trust, however, they will bear with me while I try to present my case to the House. Now, if you -figure interest at 51 per cent, which is the amount the Government has to pay for this money, it will mean something like $2,700,000 on this $50,000,000, which the Government 
loaned the merchant marine for the year 1920. Would it not be right, in making up this statement, that this large sum of over $2,000,000 for interest, which the Canadian merchant marine owes the Government, should be included in the liabilities here submitted? But instead of any such sum as $2,700,000 we find in the liability column of operating expenses the small sum of $22,000. The hon. member for Centre Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) said a moment of two ago that in 1919 the Canadian Government Merchant Marine had in the treasury for the payment of interest the sum of $500,000. Admitting that that is true-although in the statement of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine for 1919 no such amount appears as having been paid-if the hon. gentleman will take his pencil and figure the matter out he will find that instead of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine owing $500,000 for interest in 1919 the sum is nearer $1,250,000. The hon. member shakes his head but let me explain the point to him. It is quite true-as he has no doubt been told-that $25,000,000 were expended in 1919 which would make $1,250,000 interest, but if the hon. member will think for a moment he will realize that not only was money advanced in 1919 but a very large sum was also advanced in 1918, so taking the interest on the money advanced in both these years my figures will be found to be easily within the limit.
There is another point upon which I wish to dwell and it is this: I think it was my genial friend the Minister of Railways who replied to me last year when I asked whether this company would pay a business profits tax to the Government the same as other private companies or corporations would. The Minister of Railways in his genial manner-always anxious to give information and never objecting to do so-said that the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, like any other private corporation, would have to pay under the statute a certain amount of money on the profits. Now, Sir, what do we find? That in order to make as good a showing as possible the Canadian Government Merchant Marine presents a statement for 1919 in which they represent that they made a profit of $1,400,000. Of course that profit was only on paper, but they represented it to be the case, and the result is they will have to pay $700,000 as a business profits tax to the Government. That amount has not been paid and consequently the Canadian Government Merchant Marine still

owe that amount to the Government. I say, Sir, that when Messrs. Marwick, Mitchell and Company made up this statement-if they are responsible for it-they should have included in the liabilities of this company not only some $3,000,000 but also $700,000 as the amount of business profits tax payable on the profits of the company in 1919. There are a number of other discrepancies in the statement and I will deal with them in a minute.
The Minister of Marine and the hon. member for Centre Vancouver have again endeavoured to-night to show that the country was behind this project, and that nobody on this side of the House had opposed the building and the operating of ships by the Government. Well, I wish to state that outside of 1918, when the war was on, I have on every occasion objected to the Government entering into the shipbuilding business. When the minister asked us in 1919 for $30,000,000, and again in 1920, when he asked for $20,000,000, I rose in my place and protested against the Government's shipbuilding policy; I told them to sell the ships and clean up the dirty mess as quickly as possible. It is useless for any hon. member opposite now to state that the Opposition were in favour of the Government shipbuilding policy.
Now, Sir, we have asked for certain information. We did so on Monday night and on Tuesday morning. I say that before the Government brought in closure and applied the gag to hon. members on this side, the Minister of Marine should have asked the committee to rise and report progress so that he could obtain the information from Toronto that was asked for. What a spectacle we find presented to us to-night! Yesterday at three o'clock the Prime Minister-who more than anybody else is responsible for the legislation which compels us at 2 o'clock to stop discussing the matter-moved that the committee rise so that the closure motion might be introduced.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Duff: If hon. members opposite
want to cheer they are welcome to do so; but the people of this country who want full information in regard to the operations of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, will not appreciate the fact that the Prime Minister took such a course. And what was one of the excuses advanced by the right hon. gentleman for bringing in the closure motion? Let me recall what he said. At page 2030 of Hansard the Prime
Minister is reported as making this statement :
The hon. member for Red Deer, the hon. member for St. James, Montreal, the hon. member for Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, and the hon. member for Westmoreland all have pleaded for the Government to intervene and have the closure applied in this committee.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to state that the hon. member for Lunenburg said no such thing-I want to deny that statement in toto. I do not blame the Prime Minister, because he was not in the House between eleven o"cloek on Monday night and ten o'clock on Tuesday morning, and therefore he did not know whether any one of the hon. gentlemen mentioned asked to have the closure applied. Somebody must have made that statement to my right hon. friend in the endeavour to get the Government out of the hole they were in. Nobody on this side asked for the application of closure. I now see the Prime Minister in his seat and I repeat in his presence the denial I made when he was absent. No such statement as alleged was made by any one of the hon. gentlemen referred to.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time.


Georges Henri Boivin: I would ask hon.
gentlemen to please remember that the hon. member for Lunenburg has the floor. He did not rise untli fifteen minutes to two and he is entitled to speak for twenty minutes. Therefore his time has not yet quite expired.


William Duff: I certainly believe hon.
members do not wish to gag me and deprive me of this opportunity of stating my position. I was perhaps more interested in the discussion of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine than any other hon. member.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Will the hon. gentleman allow me a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


James Arthurs: The hon. gentleman
has said that the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) did not ask for the closure. Is he quite sure of that?


William Duff: I was saying that in view
of the fact that I have taken such an interest in this matter and endeavoured to place the facts before the House would, I believed hon. members would give me a little extra time. This important matter, which means the voting of $8,000,000 of the people's money, should not be forced through by closure. If the Opposition had hoen fighting this matter for two, three

or four days, and had been deliberately obstructing, I could understand why the Prime Minister would introduce the closure. But, Sir, we only asked for this information,-I want the Prime Minister to listen to this for a moment-we only asked for this information at twelve o'clock Monday night. The Minister of Marine either refused or would not give that information to us. Under the circumstances the Opposition was perfectly justified in demanding that before the item passed the Minister of Marine should obtain that information from the head office of the Merchant Marine at Toronto and lay it before the committee. Certainly, the Government was not justified in introducing the closure, which debars us tonight from receiving the required information before voting this item of $8,000,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Time:


William Duff: I say the people of this
country will not endorse such drastic measures, and when they are given a chance at the polls, be it sooner or be it later, they will register their protest against the Government in no uncertain manner. When a minister will come before this House and refuse to give the representatives of the people information which they have every right to require, either he should resign his seat or the Government should appeal to the country. Any Government or any party supporting it deserves no credit for such action, and i will be condemned by the people, when the first opportunity offers for an expression of the national will.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, at. this late hour of the night-


Georges Henri Boivin: (Translation): I regret it very much, but I cannot let any member have the floor when it is past two o'clock. Unless he was on his feet before two o'clock, no member can speak after two o'clock.


Joseph Bruno Aimé Miville Déchêne: Mr. Chairman, I have been on my feet many times before two o'clock and the hon. gentleman who was in the Chair during your absence by acknowledging only the members on the other side was depriving the members on this side of their right to have the floor. Having been on my feet many times before two o'clock, I wish to avail myself of my privilege.


Georges Henri Boivin: The ruling of the Chair applies to those who have spoken before two o'clock; it does not apply to the

members who were on their feet but did not catch the eye of the Chairman. I must stand by the ruling that after two o'clock it is utterly impossible, under the rules of this House, to let anybody have the floor.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: May I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member
could only rise to a question of order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I think I am quite in order.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member is not in order in rising to a question of privilege after two o'clock when the vote is before the House. He would be in order in rising to a point of order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: May I rise to a point of order?


Georges Henri Boivin: Yes.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: My point of order is this: I did not have an opportunity to speak on this debate after the Prime Minister misinformed the committee as to something which I was supposed to have said, but which I never said at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Before this motion is put I think I should be allowed to rise to a question of privilege to correct the Prime Minister. I am not very much concerned about correcting him, but I wish to inform the committee as to a false impression that the Prime Minister conveyed, something that he does very often.


Georges Henri Boivin: In deciding the point of order, I must tell the hon. member that the fact that he rose and was unable to be recognized by the Chair before two o'clock does not give him the right at the present time to make any correction whatsoever. I regret the hon. member was not seen by the Chair when he rose to address the committee. That, however, is his misfortune, and the rule must be followed.
The question is now on item 218. Sir Henry Drayton moves:
That a sum not exceeding $8,330,000 be placed at the disposal of His Majesty for a Government shipbuilding programme, being the amount required for the construction of the vessels in accordance with the said Government programme.
Motion agreed to on division: yeas, 103; nays, 79.


Georges Henri Boivin: Sir Henry Drayton moves:
That a sum of money not exceeding $71,499,703.70, being one-sixth of the amount of each of the several items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1922, and one-sixth of the amount of the item for a provisional bonus allowance for the inside and outside services of the Civil Service set forth in the Supplementary Estimate for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1922, be granted to His Majesty for the fiscal year ending the March 31, 1922.
Mr. Lemieux moves in amendment:
That the total amount mentioned in the resolution be reduced by the sum of $13,407.16, being one-sixth, of the amount of item No. 325 for salaries and contingencies of the Purchasing Commission and that said Item be not included in the schedule to said resolution.
The question is on the amendment.
Amendment negatived on division: yeas, 77; nays, 103.
Mr.vMIDDLEBRO:	Mr. Chairman, I
would call attention to the fact that the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Thomson) is in his seat and has not voted.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out to the hon. member for Grey that in committee an hon. member is not obliged to vote. The question is on the main motion.
Main motion (Sir Henry Drayton) agreed to; yeas, 117; nays, 63.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS-THE INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton, the House went into Committee of Ways and Means, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Henry Lumley Drayton: Resolved, That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 1922, the sum of $71,499,703.70 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 42, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1922.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
On motion of Right Hon. Mr. Meighen for the adjournment of the House.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: What business does the Government intend to take up later on in the day?


Arthur Meighen: Chiefly Supply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What Supply?


Arthur Meighen: We are ready for all Supply now, except that we will not go into External Affairs. Probably Government Orders will be taken up too. They are all on the Order Paper. I do not know of any specially.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 2.25 a.m. Thursday.
Thursday, April 14, 1921